carried out by the respective personnel that day at that time, for example, informative documents or the logbook from which it was possible to understand that they did not participated in the present events and, therefore, locate them in different circumstances as the ones described by the witnesses”.224 176. Similarly, the CNDH took into account the statements of public officials indicating that they knew that Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes had been detained by military personnel. In this connection, it examined the statement made by Public Ministry officer Aarón Enríquez Duarte to Jaime Alvarado Herrera to the effect that, according to the latter, the former had told him that the alleged victims were being held in the Infantry Battalion. It also took into consideration the contact that Public Ministry Officer Iván Sotomayor Siller had had with Public Ministry Officer Argene Blázquez Morales in which the former was told that “Commander Meza” would go to the Public Ministry agency to meet with the victims, who would be made available to the soldiers, and considered that this meant that “Commander Meza” realized that the victims were being held by the army.225 177. As far as ongoing investigations in various State entities are concerned, the CNDH indicated in its Recommendation 43/11 that, while investigations were moving forward at local, federal, and military levels, those investigations had not made it possible to clarify the present facts or, as appropriate, to determine the whereabouts of the victims or identify those responsible for said unlawful act.226 178. The content of the recommendation was approved by the Government of the State of Chihuahua.227. For its part, the Secretariat of Public Security refused to approve it228 and the Secretariat of National Defense said that it would accept the recommendation, but with the clarification that “actions to implement it, in connection with the investigation into the facts and with compensation for damages, will be subject to the findings of the ministerial and administrative investigations by the competent authorities.”229 8. Amparo 179. On January 6, 2010, José Ángel Alvarado Herrera Alvarado Favela, father of missing person José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, filed an amparo petition with the District Criminal Appeals Court in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, to terminate the unlawful, procedurally groundless detention of Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera. The amparo petition was filed against the head of the military garrison of the 35th Infantry Battalion; the commanding officer of the military garrison detached to Ciudad Juárez; the commanding officer of the Joint Chihuahua Operation detached to Ciudad Juárez; the head of the Ciudad Juárez Delegation of the Attorney General's Office of the Republic; the head of the preliminary inquiry department of the PGJE in Chihuahua, Lieutenant or Captain Lujan; and the head of the Public Ministry Office in the common jurisdiction of Buenaventura, Chihuahua.230 224 Annex I. Case file. Volume I, Recommendation 43/11 issued by the CNDH, page 66 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014). 225 Annex I. Case file. Volume I, Recommendation 43/11 issued by the CNDH, page 68 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014). 226 Annex I. Case file. Volume I, Recommendation 43/11 issued by the CNDH, page 46 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014). 227 Annex XX. Petitioners’ brief submitted as part of the MP 10-10 proceedings before the I/A Court H.R., September 7, 2011. Annex 4. Official Letter DE-078-2011 from the Government of the State of Chihuahua accepting Recommendation 43/2011 of the CNDH; Annex I. Case file. Volume I. Official Letter DE-078-2011 from the Government of the State of Chihuahua accepting Recommendation 43/2011 of the CNDH, page 160 of the pdf (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014). 228 Annex XX. Petitioners’ brief submitted as part of the MP 10-10 proceedings before the I/A Court H.R., September 7, 2011. Annex 5. Official Letter SSP/SPPC/DGDH/6035/2011 from the Secretariat for Public Security rejecting the recommendation of the CNDH; Annex I. Case file. Volume I, Official Letter SSP/SPPC/DGDH/6035/2011 from the Secretariat for Public Security rejecting the recommendation of the CNDH, page 154 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014). 229 Annex I. Case file. Volume I, Official Letter R-8356 from the Secretariat of National Defense, page 237 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014). 230 Annex XX. Petitioners’ brief dated October 10, 2012. Annex 2. Amparo Petition 009/2010 in the Sixth District Court.