2 watching her. Due to “[t]hese facts, caused her a grave fear,” she returned to her work-place. She communicated with a next of kin for him to accompany her, and as she left her work-place, she noticed that “the man was still outside” and he photographed her with a cell phone. The following morning, when Ms. Rosendo left her other job, “the person that had been watching her” the day before was outside the house. Consequently, on November 17, 2009, Ms. Rosendo brought a complain for the offense of threats, for which the prior investigation GRO/SC/125/2009 was begun; c) On December 11, 2009, at approximately 6:20 pm, Ms. Rosendo went to pick up her daughter Yenis Bernardino from the school where she studied and a few meters before arriving, her daughter “left running with her backpack on her back, crying and very upset,” because two men that had tried to take her away, had stolen her cell phone. For this, the aforementioned inquiry incorporated the new criminal facts against Ms. Rosendo and her daughter for the offense of threats, robbery, minors or disabled persons abduction, and child abduction. d) On February 13, 2009, “in the framework of the disappearance of Raúl Lucas Lucía and Manuel Ponce Flores, as well as of the aggressions committed against Obtilia Eugenio, Ms. Rosendo informed her representatives “that she identified two persons that were watching her and following her from her house to her work.” She added that Ms. Rosendo “could recognize that one of the persons watching her [had] been identifie[d] as an assistant of the Army.” The next of kin of Ms. Rosendo, who are in another community, had manifested her that they fear for her life, because in such place “information exists that members of the Army, which are connected with other members of the community, are in Chilpancingo with the objective of following her.” 5. The arguments of the representatives to support their request for measures of protection, among which they provided that: a) “the facts are grave attempts against life, security, and tranquility of Valentina [Rosendo Cantu] and her daughter” and occurred in a context of the re-activation of the case of Ms. Rosendo before the Tribunal, “for which a well-founded fear exists that reprisals may be taken against her or against her family,” b) Ms. Rosendo and her daughter do not have on a security measure that allows them to be protected. As a result of the sexual violation and the work that she initiated to denounce it on an internal and international level, Ms. Rosendo “was obligated to radically change her life and to reside in the city of Chilpancingo, where she does not have social networks of support.” Initially, they estimated that the change of city was a measure to give her protection, nevertheless “[the] response and [the] measures of protection towards her were slower” when provided by the representatives, since Tlachinollan is located 4 and a half hours of distance by vehicle from Chilpancingo; c) The facts suffered by Ms. Rosendo and her daughter are similar to those that were denounced by the beneficiaries of the related provisional measures in the case of Fernández Ortega et al., namely “following and the taking of photos by persons