4 Rights Commission itself, on June 30, 2011, in complaint file no. CNDH/2/2010/108/Q, instructed the responsible authorities to investigate, elucidate, and punish in relation to the facts concerning the disappearance of the three presumed victims; this recommendation has yet to be fulfilled. 18. Furthermore, the petitioners hold that, because of the actions taken by the relatives of the presumed victims to elucidate the facts and to ascertain their whereabouts, they were subjected to presumed 5 threats, persecution, harassment, and illegal raids. They allege that a situation of risk has therefore been created for the life and personal integrity of the relatives of the presumed victims, which has aggravated their suffering regarding the disappearance of Nitza Paola, Rocio Irene, and José Ángel Alvarado. In this connection, the petitioners referred to the information submitted as part of the process requesting the precautionary and 6 provisional measures associated with this matter. 19. Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners allege that the exceptions provided in Article 46.2.a and c. of the American Convention apply. Concerning the exception defined in Article 46.2.a of the Convention, they propose that the amparo appeal is not be an effective mechanism for denouncing a disappearance because the domestic legal framework requires that, in order to be considered lodged and in process, the “direct complainants” must ratify the appeal. In other words, in this case, the people reported as detained and missing must ratify the amparo appeal. The petitioners therefore argue that, while the relatives of the presumed victims filed an amparo appeal on a timely basis—on January 6, 2010—it could not have been effective. With regard to this same exception, they indicate that domestic investigations had been undertaken into “abuse of authority” and “illegal deprivation of libert,” and not into the crime of forced disappearance. Accordingly, they hold that the Mexican legal system does not afford due process of law for the protection of the rights allegedly violated. 20. With regard to the exception provided in Article 46.2.c of the Convention, the petitioners hold that the alleged forced disappearance of Nitza Paola, José Ángel, and Rocio Irene Alvarado has not been clarified, and that in spite of the severity of the facts and the amount of time that has transpired, the processes initiated at the domestic level at the request of the relatives of the presumed victims have not progressed past the initial stage of investigation. This means that, to date, no regular legal authority has heard the matter. In this regard, they report that on December 31, 2009 relatives of the presumed victims filed a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General of Justice of Chihuahua state, and on January 6, 2010 with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, which declined competence in light of the military court, a level of jurisdiction in which they would not have been able to have effective participation and/or representation. 21. Accordingly, the petitioners hold that, given the ongoing nature of the alleged forced disappearances, their effects extend into the present because the whereabouts of the presumed victims have not been established, and as was indicated with regard to the domestic processes, the petition was submitted within a reasonable period of time. B. The State 22. In response to the claim, the State indicates that proceedings are under way under regular law and that the responsible authorities have made the necessary efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the presumed victims. In this connection, the State includes in its response details on the investigative activity carried out by the different authorities who have had knowledge of the investigation into the alleged disappearance of 5 Specifically, they allege that on August 28, 2011, federal police broke into the home of Jaime Alvarado Herrera, brother of José Angel Alvarado. These alleged facts were reported to the Human Rights Court in processing the provisional measure related with this case. See: Order of the Inter-American Court. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. vs. Mexico. November 23, 2012, paragraph 17.g). 6 See: Orders of the Inter-American Court in the matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. vs. Mexico, dated May 26, 2010; November 26, 2010; April 1, 2011; May 15, 2011; and November 23, 2012.