119. On May 28, 2012, the General Prosecution Service of the State of Chihuahua (Fiscalía General del Estado de Chihuahua, hereinafter the la FGEC) declined to take jurisdiction and referred the case to the Chihuahua Delegation of the PGR for jurisdictional reasons122 because it involved a crime of forced disappearance of persons, for which the Official of the Public Ministry of the Federation attached to the Delegation of the State of Chihuahua of the Attorney General's Office of the Republic exercised the jurisdiction to hear the case of said crime.123 120. In the statement declining jurisdiction, the General Prosecution Service of the State of Chihuahua deemed that, (…) the existence of a group comprised of more than three persons, dressed in military-type clothes, in two motor vehicles, and who deprived persons of their personal liberty, is not a random incident, rather it is in keeping with logistics planned in an orderly fashion and with rules of conduct, which implies prior examination of the victims and their environment, as well preparation to commit the crime, displaying a certain amount of experience in committing this type of crime, bearing in mind the speed and degree of accuracy with which they proceeded, which indicates that it was done by trained persons. Likewise, the garments, the military type of clothes, and the off-road type of vehicle (Hummer), along with the complaint filed by C. Patricia Reyes Rueda, who mentioned word for word how she was bluntly denied the information she was requesting to locate her next of kin in the military garrison for which those accused of depriving the liberty of those called Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera are organized, followed procedures, benefited from infrastructure, financial resources, and basic logistics, therefore the present authority believes there is a presumption, on the basis of the clues, that said criminal act was carried out by army troops.124 4. Attorney General's Office of the Republic (PGR) – Special Prosecution Service on Crimes of Violence against Women and Human Trafficking (FEVIMTRA) 121. On March 8, 2010, FEVIMTRA started preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/FEVIMTRA/TRA/009/2010 for the crime of illegal deprivation of liberty and later on for the crime of human trafficking against Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, incidents that were reported by the Unit for Prevention and Human Rights Defense of the Secretariat of the Governor's Office, on the basis of communication. UPDDH/911/1240/2010125. 122. On April 8, 2011, at the request of FEVIMTRA, María de Jesús Alvarado, Obdulia Espinoza, and Jaime Alvarado went to the premises of the Special Prosecution Service to broaden their initial statements,126 at which time they challenged the legitimacy of the Special Prosecution Service to conduct the 122 Annex XX. Brief of the State sent as part of the MP 10-10 proceedings with the I/A Court H.R. on January 29, 2013; Annex I. Case file. Volume XVI. Statement where it is reported that jurisdiction for preliminary inquiry was declined 124/2009, May 28, 2012, page 516 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 123 Annex I. Case file. Volume XVI. Statement where it is reported that jurisdiction for preliminary inquiry was declined 124/2009, May 28, 2012, page 516 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 124 Annex I. Case file. Volume XVI. Statement where it is reported that jurisdiction for preliminary inquiry was declined 124/2009, May 28, 2012, page 516 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 125 Annex I. Case file. Volume XVII. Resolution to start preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/FEVIMTRA/TRA/009/2010 of March 8, 2010, page 3 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 126 Annex I. Case file. Volume XVII. Statement made by María de Jesús Alvarado to FEVIMTRA on April 15, 2010, page 402 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014); Annex I. Case file. Volume XVIIII. Report of FEVIMTRA addressed to the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, January 10, 2011, page 291 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014); Annex XX. Brief of the State sent as part of the MP 10-10 proceedings with the I/A Court H.R. on April 1, 2011.