liberty by State agents, remaining in State custody. In this connection, the Commission considers that the second element of forced disappearance has been met in the instant case. 3. Denial of the detention and cover-up 230. With regard to the denial of the detention and cover-up, the Commission notes that, when the victim’s next of kin approached different officials to report what had happened and request information about their relatives, everyone, with the exception of two authorities who told them that their relatives were being held by the army, replied that they were unaware of the victims’ detention or their whereabouts. Specifically, the 35th Infantry Battalion and the Federal Investigation Agency in Nuevo Casas Grandes told them on December 30, 2009, that they did not have any information. Days later, on January 9, 2010, family members and a family attorney went to the 5th military zone installations where a 35th Infantry Battalion Colonel once again denied that the three victims had been detained. 231. In addition to these denials, the Commission observes that in the instant case additional cover-up mechanisms were introduced. On the one hand, the case was placed in the hands of military criminal justice for a considerable length of time, even though that jurisdiction does not provide the necessary guarantees of independence and impartiality, as will be analyzed later in this report. The Commission notes that even when the case continued to be considered by the ordinary courts, military criminal justice officials continued to obstruct efforts to clarify what occurred. As described in the proven facts, military criminal justice refrained from authorizing FEVIMTRA to conduct investigations in military installations, in particular in the 35th Infantry Battalion. The Commission notes that FEVIMTRA mentioned the apathy of the military authorities in collaborating with the investigation. 232. The denials and obstructions resulting from the active participation and omissions of military justice were compounded by the threats and harassment reported by the family on various occasions. 233. In this respect, according to a witness statement by one of the victims’ relatives, he had received a death threat for “talking too much.” Another relative said that her home was broken into, with a death threat left for her and her family. Other family members have said that army personnel and federal police patrolled the vicinity of their homes in order to intimidate them. For all these reasons, the members of the Alvarado family felt obliged to move away from their homes. Another factor that is instrumental in proving concealment concerns the retraction issued by the Sergeant-Driver, who had testified against the senior commander of the 35th Infantry Battalion, Colonel Luján. It bears mentioning that the reasons for this retraction—likely the fear of reprisals—were not investigated. 234. Finally, and of particular relevance to the matter of concealment, the Commission underscores that the report of the team of international experts points out that staff of the District Attorney's Office of the State of Chihuahua in the municipality of Buenaventura, Federal Police of the PGR, and some senior army officers intervened subsequently to ensure the removal and concealment of the victims and to continue to refuse to provide information on their whereabouts to their relatives and attorneys. 235. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission is of the view that sufficient evidence is available to qualify what occurred as forced disappearance of persons. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the Mexican State violated the right to juridical personality, to life, to humane treatment, and to personal liberty established in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of that instrument, to the detriment of Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes. Likewise, the Commission concludes that the State violated Article I.a of the IACFDP, to the detriment of the same individuals. B. Right to a fair trial and to judicial protection (Article 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights) in connection with the obligation to respect human rights and the duty to adopt provisions under domestic law (Articles 1.1 and 2 of the