264. What is more, the Commission observes that when information arose that required an immediate response, such as the phone call that Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza presumably made on February 3, 2010, the authorities responsible for the investigation unjustifiably delayed the gathering of evidence and the analysis of its results—effectively thwarting the possibility of tracing the call—which occurred months after it was reported and which simply concluded that it came from a phone line used for purposes of extortion. Nor was a determination made of the satellite position from which it was made, which, had it been done immediately, could have provided information on the possible whereabouts of at least one of the missing persons. 265. Another matter that was not investigated thoroughly and on which the State has not given a satisfactory answer has to do with the van from which José Ángel Alvarado Herrera and Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza were allegedly removed. This information is not in dispute since said van was in State custody on the very day of the disappearance and was returned to María de Jesús Alvarado Espinoza on February 15, 2015. However relevant the fact that the van linked to the disappearance was in State custody, a line of investigation was not pursued into how the van got to the area outside the Northern Chihuahua State Deputy Attorney General’s Office. 266. In addition, the Commission observes that another factor that obstructed the diligent pursuit of the investigation has to do with the different ways in which the facts have been classified in the multiple investigations initiated. Thus, although the initial complaints clearly showed information that suggested the possible commission of forced disappearance, the acts were classified on various occasions and by different investigating bodies as “abuse of authority” or “unlawful deprivation of liberty,” and only recently, in May 2012, i.e., two and a half years after the disappearance took place, were the facts classified for the first time as possible forced disappearance, which resulted in a denial of jurisdiction by the federal court. However, the federal jurisdiction continued the investigation for other crimes, and only very recently has it once again qualified what happened as a possible forced disappearance. 267. On this point, while it is incumbent on domestic authorities to determine which crimes are applicable within their jurisdictions, it can happen that inadequate internal classifications become a factor of impunity either because these classifications do not reflect the seriousness of the conduct or because they impede a thorough investigation of all matters constituting serious human rights violations. That is why various international instruments on serious human rights violations like torture or forced disappearance oblige the States to adequately define the respective acts as crimes under their domestic laws. This means that, when the facts exist to consider what occurred as an act of forced disappearance, the respective investigations must be opened under that criminal classification since, otherwise, such essential elements of this serious human rights violation as concealment or refusal to provide information would not be investigated. 268. The Commission considers that the failure to identify and consistency, from the outset of the investigations, the reported acts as possible forced disappearance had an impact on the way in which the investigation was conducted and on the erroneous assignment of jurisdiction over years, which affected the diligence and immediacy required in these cases. The Commission notes that this matter is still a subject of debate in the internal investigations. Indeed, although on March 31, 2014, the Prosecution Service submitted a request for an arrest warrant against an army member, the judge considering the request denied it as it did not provide evidence of a third of the elements of the crime of forced disappearance established in Article 215-A. The Commission notes that the PGR drew attention to the fact that the head of the judicial body that denied the arrest warrant request examined a file of over 11,000 pages in less than 24 hours. 269. Finally, the Commission observes that neither was there a careful investigation of the threats received by the Alvarado family, which were reported in due time. At least two of them were serious death threats that, because of their nature, seemed to be connected to the participation of family members in the search for their loved ones and in the efforts to obtain justice. The Commission notes that the source of those threats has not yet been clarified, nor have they been considered possible relevant elements in the