8 “urgency”, and iii) that they try to “avoid irreparable damages to people.” These three conditions are co-existing and must be present in any situation in which the intervention of the Tribunal is requested.8 In the present matter the extreme magnitude and intensity of the situation of risk informed, the alleged disappearance of Mrs. Rocío and Nitza and Mr. Jose, is pointed out. The lack of positive results by state authorities with regard to the determination of what had occurred to those people, their whereabouts, and their current situation, allows the presumption that the situation of risk of violation of their rights has been aggravated, taking into account that they disappeared since December 29, 2009. The Tribunal considers that the intervention may not be delayed in order to diminish the threat, since the delay or lack of a response would imply in itself a danger. Finally, the irreparable nature of the damage that could occur to the rights that are in danger due to that situation of grave and urgent risk is evident. The situation of disappearance constitutes a grave threat to the rights to personal freedom, humane treatment, and life, rights of an essential nature that the Tribunal has the obligation to protect when the circumstances established in Article 63(2) of the American Convention are present. 10. Specifically, in this matter, it must be taken into account that, immediately and in the days following to the disappearance, the next of kin carried out several processes to obtain information on their situation and whereabouts (supra Having seen paragraphs 2(b) and (f)), among them: i) they informed the town police, ii) ii) they turned to the State Investigative Agency of Nuevo Casas Grandes, where they verified that the van in which Nitza and José were traveling when detained was located in the yard; iii) they filed a complaint before the Public Prosecutors’ Office of Buenaventura, iv) they visited the barracks of the 35th Infantry Battalion, since they received information from official sources indicating that their next of kin were at said battalion; v) a complaint was filed at the offices of the Chihuahua Joint Operative in Ciudad Juárez; vi) they filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission in Ciudad Juárez; and vii) they presented a complaint before the NHRC. 11. This Court values that the State has responded to all the Commission’s requests for information (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2(c), (e), and (f)), as well as its filing of observations in response to the communication from the President of the Tribunal (supra Having Seen paragraphs 5 through 7). Additionally, the Court observes that based on the complaints filed by the next of kin, two bodies in charge of the prosecution of crimes started preliminary inquiries: la Attorney General of the State of Chihuahua and the Attorney General of the Republic. However, the latter is no longer in charge of any inquiry since in February 2010, it forwarded the inquiry to the Attorney General of Military Justice based on Article 57 fraction II subparagraph a of the Code of Military Justice (supra Having Seen paragraph 2(d)(ii), (g)(ii), and (f) and Having Seen paragraph 7(iii)).9 Additionally, the Court observes that the National Commission of Human Rights has opened an investigation, being the only authority that had inspected at least one state security installation at the area of the facts.10 8 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering clause number fourteen; Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 5, Considering Clause number ten; and Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 6, Considering Clause number ten. 9 Cf. decision adopted on January 13, 2009, by the agent of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Federation attached to the Seventh Table of the Delegation in the State of Chihuahua; and decision adopted on February 10, 2010, by the Attorney General of the Republic, State Delegation of Chihuahua, in which it “authorizes the consultation of lack of competence due to jurisdiction matters” (Annex 4 to the request for provisional measures filed by the Inter-American Commission). 10 Personnel of the National Human Rights Commission traveled from Mexico D.F. to inspect the installations of the 35th Infantry Battalion of Nuevo Casas Grandes (brief of the Human Rights State Commission of Chihuahua of March 12, 2010, (Annex 6 to the request for provisional measures filed by the Inter-American Commission).