6 [obtains] proof sufficient to demonstrate the participation of members of the military in these events, the Social Representation of the Federation will be able to raise this affidavit in [its] preliminary investigation.” 8. Additionally, the State indicated that the PGJE “continue[d] with investigative procedures in all cases with outstanding complaints in order to uncover the truth of the matters alleged and identify those responsible.” On June 28, 2010, the State provided a copy of the case file corresponding to this investigation, and in August 2010 it indicated with respect to this procedure that “the investigations [were moving forward] with the aim of gathering more proof directly related to the established guidelines.” The State also reported on activities this institution had conducted in favor of the beneficiaries’ family members, among which it mentioned having provided them with legal assistance; informing them as to their rights and the investigation’s ongoing development; giving them the opportunity to consult the case file and obtain certified copies of the same; receiving the evidence at the State’s disposal; and fulfilling their requests and proposals. The State insisted that the beneficiaries’ family members “have the opportunity to act as ancillary parties to the investigation (in Spanish “coadyuvancia” - similar to the Anglo “amici curiae”), whereby the representatives of the beneficiaries may submit evidence jointly with the authorities so that it is duly integrated into the investigation,” but that these representatives “have emphasized their lack of inclination to do so.” In that regard, the State requested that the family members and the representatives collaborate with “the ministerial authorities making up these separate investigations wherever [...] necessary.” 9. The State also noted that it was in the course of exerting “the maximum effort to determine the beneficiaries’ whereabouts” for which it required information “from In that regard, the State various authorities at three levels of government.”10 submitted a communication from the National Commission for the Prevention and Eradication of Violence Against Women (hereinafter “CONAVIM”) in which this organization reported that it “d[id] not have any further information to provide.”11 The State also presented a letter written to the Ministry of National Defense (hereinafter “SEDENA”) showing that the Military Prosecutor was moving forward with the integration of the preliminary investigation, which “in itself constitute[d] a measure to clarify whether military personnel participated in the alleged disappearance of the [beneficiaries],” and that “it [was] unknown” whether SEDENA officials had had contact with the beneficiaries after December 29, 2009 “because the authorities of the 5th Military Zone (Chihuahua, Chih.) [had] den[ied] that personnel from their jurisdiction Investigation Agency, Amnesty International, and other non-governmental organizations from various countries. 10 In this regard, the State indicated that it has received responses from different authorities from three different levels of government, among which it mentioned: the General Ministry of the Government of Chihuahua; the Ministry of Public Safety and Citizen Protection of Chihuahua; the CONAVIM; the National Commission on Human Rights; the Supreme Court of Mexico; the Ministries of the Governments of Aguascalientes, Querétaro, Guerrero, State of Mexico, Colima, and Oaxaca; the Attorneys General of Chiapas, Durango, Baja California, Hidalgo, Querétaro, Veracruz, Puebla, and Nuevo León; and the State Human Rights Commissions of Guanajuato, Veracruz, Guerrero, Colima, Jalisco, Coahuila, Durango, Quintana Roo, Hidalgo, South Baja California, Campeche, Sonora, and Morelos. The responses from the majority of the aforementioned State authorities indicate they do not know about the case or have in any information to provide in relation to it (Attachments from the State’s brief of June 3, 2010). 11 In that letter, the CONAVIM remarked that it had requested information from the FEVIMTRA, the Director for International Cooperation of the PGR, and from the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights in the Ministry of Governance. In that regard, the CONAVIM stated that it had been informed of steps taken by the FEVIMTRA and that the latter had expressed its willingness to establish a communications link and a permanent dialogue with the family members of the victims and their proper representatives. For this reason, the CONAVIM reaffirmed its availability in its North and Central regional offices “so that when they see fit, they can go there for information” (Attachment 2 of State’s brief of August 3, 2010).