4 favor of Patricia Reyes Rueda, Alan Alvarado Reyes, Adrián Alvarado Reyes, Michelle Urrutia Alvarado, Manuel Reyes, Obdulia Espinoza Beltrán, Johana Alvarado Espinoza, José Ángel Alvarado Espinoza, Angélica Alvarado Espinoza, José Ángel Alvarado Favela, Concepción Herrera Hernández, Jaime Alvarado Herrera, Manuel Melquíades Alvarado Herrera, Rosa Olivia Alvarado Herrera, Karina Paola Alvarado Alvarado, Fabián Alvarado Herrera, Feliz García, Mitzi Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Nitza Citlali Alvarado Espinoza, Daisy Alvarado Espinoza5, María de Jesús Alvarado Espinoza, Rigoberto Ambriz Marrufo, María de Jesús Espinoza Peinado, Ascensión Alvarado Favela, all family members of the beneficiaries, as well as Emilia González Tercero, Patricia Galarza Gándara6, Brenda Andazola, Luz Esthela Castro Rodríguez7, Oscar Enríquez, Javier Ávila Aguirre y Francisca Galván, their representatives. I. Regarding the implementation of provisional measures in favor of Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera 7. Regarding the implementation of protective measures, the State noted that “it has shown its willingness to undertake an investigation into the facts by way of the legally-constituted institutions, exhausting all possibilities and managing efforts in all [s]tates throughout the country [...] so that the [federal authorities] initiate search protocols to ascertain the whereabouts of [the beneficiaries].” The State declared that it is “surprised that all steps or efforts undertaken by the State of Mexico have been classified by the representatives of the beneficiaries as fruitless,” but that despite this “the search for the beneficiaries [would] continue through the exhaustion of all legal means and tools.” In this regard, the State reported that the Attorney General’s Office (hereinafter the “PGR”) through the Special Prosecution Unit for Violence Against Women and the Treatment of Persons (hereinafter “FEVIMTRA”), as well as the Chihuahua Attorney General’s Office (hereinafter “PGJE”) “maintain open, ongoing investigations in which progress has been made and several investigatory avenues are being followed.” In that regard, the State explained that the PGR had reported that it opened three investigations, each “within the province of the powers and special functions that the law provides [to it]”: the first before the head of the Seventh Investigatory Agency of Criminal Procedure Subsection A of the PGR in Chihuahua state, which was later sent to the representative of the Military Prosecutor’s Office due to lack of jurisdiction; the second before the head of the Investigatory Agency of Nuevo Cases Grandes in Chihuahua state; and the third before FEVIMTRA. The State insisted that “there [wasn’t] [any] delegation of jurisdiction to the military courts [on the part of the Attorney General’s Office] as [there was with] the facts that gave rise to the protective measures,” by virtue of the investigation lodged before FEVIMTRA for the crime of forced disappearance. The State added that concerning the case file forwarded to the Military Prosecutor, the Social Representation of the Federation had stopped investigating the crime of abuse of authority because “it determined a lack of 5 In its initial request of September 3, 2010 to expand the present provisional measures (supra Having Seen 5), the Commission identified this proposed beneficiary as “Deisy” Alvarado Espinoza. In its later communication of October 27, 2010 (supra Having Seen 9), as well as in other briefs by the representatives, she was identified as “Daisy” Alvarado Espinoza. For the purposes of this Order, the Court will utilize the latter form. 6 In its initial request of September 3, 2010 to expand the present provisional measures (supra Having Seen 5), the Commission identified this proposed beneficiary as Patricia “Garza” Gándara. In its later communication of October 27, 2010 (supra Having Seen 9), as well as in other briefs by the representatives, she was identified as Patricia Galarza Gándara. For the purposes of this Order, the Court will utilize the latter form. 7 This representative is identified in some briefs as Luz “Esthela” Castro Rodríguez and on other occasions as Luz “Estela” Castro Rodríguez. For the purposes of this Order, the Tribunal will adopt the most frequent form utilized by both the Commission and the representatives, which is Luz Esthela Castro Rodríguez.