134. The Prosecution Service sent an official letter to various state bodies requesting information about the post-mortem examination records bearing the name of the alleged victims, but all responses were negative.155 In addition, it requested various bodies to report whether or not there was any record of the removal of dead bodies and/or bodies buried in mass graves which would match the characteristics of the alleged victims, which request did not yield any results either.156 135. On July 13, 2011, the PGR published in the Official Gazette an agreement whereby a reward would be given to anyone who provided information for the location of José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, as well as for the identification, location, detention, and arrest of those probably responsible for the crime of illegal deprivation of liberty.157 136. As appearing in the State's report of October 7, 2011, as well as in the case file, there are three lines of investigation in the preliminary inquiry: i) possible involvement of troops of the Mexican Army; ii) participation of organized crime; and iii) tracking down the phone call that Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza had supposedly made on February 3, 2011.158 137. On September 30, 2011, FEVIMTRA declined to take jurisdiction to hear the case and referred it to the Chihuahua Delegation of PGR. It concluded that the facts did not reflect gender-based violence against a woman or girl.159 In this refusal, FEVIMTRA deemed that there were no clues revealing the participation of organized crime in the incidents and that it did not discard the participation of the Mexican Army, because there are direct indications against them, in addition to the apathy shown by military authorities towards FEVIMTRA to collaborate in the investigation. It specified that this does not implicate that they had probably participated, nor does it lend credibility to the few ministerial actions that they apparently took.160 This statement declining jurisdiction was authorized by the Official of the Public Ministry of the Federation on that same date.161 155 Annex I. Case file. Volume XIX. Official letter from the Forensic Medicine Department of the Government of Michoacán, June 29, 2011, page 140-141 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 156 See, for example, Annex I. Case file. Volume XIX. Official letter from the person in charge of the Forensic Medicine Service of the PGR in Baja California, June 27, 2011, page 149 of the pdf document (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014); Annex I. Case file. Volume XIX. Official letter from the PGR of the State of Oaxaca, July 2, 2011, page 191 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 XIX. Official letter from the Attorney General's Office of San Luis Potosí, July 2, 2011, page 215 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 157 Annex I. Case file. Volume XX. Resolution A/055/11, July 13, 2011, page 541 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 158 Annex I. Case file. Volume XXI. Termination of preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/FEVIMTRA/TRA/009/2010, page 139 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 159 Annex I. Case file. Volume XXI. Termination of preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/FEVIMTRA/TRA/009/2010, page 159 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 160 Annex I. Case file. Volume XXI. Termination of preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/FEVIMTRA/TRA/009/2010, page 159 of the pdf file. (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). When declining to take jurisdiction, FEVIMTRA also indicated that "the permanent secretiveness of the Mexican Army to collaborate with FEVIMTRA to shed light on these incidents has been a factor that has somehow reduced the horizon of possibilities to follow up on the investigations in that jurisdiction and, because of direct indications against it that witnesses of these incidents have upheld from the very start, reasons for which the present Special Prosecution Service does not exclude involvement of its troops in these incidents although it might only be a likelihood, and in similar terms extended the investigation to elements of the Federal Public Security Secretariat, in line with the complaint filed by the Legal Representative of the National Human Rights Commission, as specified in the minister agreement dated September 15, 2011.” 161 Annex I. Case file. Volume XXI. Adoption of termination of preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/FEVIMTRA/TRA/009/2010, page 163 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014).