addition, pursuant to what the representatives and the State had agreed upon, safeconducts were granted to approximately 27 of the beneficiaries’ relatives. According to the representatives’ latest information, four of the beneficiaries’ relatives were not granted a renewal of their safe-conduct. Of those, three live in Haiti and one lives in the Dominican Republic. In addition, the representatives asked that safe-conducts be given to six more family members, something they reiterated in their comments dated November 30, 2011. Regarding this, the Court finds that the State has taken action toward providing the beneficiaries of these measures (supra Having Seen 2) and their relatives with safe conducts. This Tribunal likewise recognizes the State’s willingness to grant safe conducts to the relatives of the beneficiaries who have not yet received them. B) Regarding a work group or team to collaborate in the implementation of the measures ordered by the Court 17. In its report dated February 12, 2010, the State mentioned that it appointed a team to collaborate in the implementation of the measures ordered by the Court and it provided additional details on the team’s composition. Likewise, in several briefs, the State reported that on March 4, 2010 and January 17, 2011 the team’s two first meetings were held in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic. It reported that in those meetings, they discussed the matter of the safety of Mrs. Pierre, the search for an amicable solution, the renewal of the pending safe-conducts, and the general execution of the provisional measures. It is important to mention that the team agreed in its first meeting to meet regularly every three months. According to the information provided by the State, as of this date, the details for the next meeting have not yet been agreed upon. Additionally, in its latest report dated November 4, 2011, the State noted that, despite their interest in holding the meetings regularly, the representatives “have not established further contact with the State” toward doing so. 18. In comments dated October 7, 2011, the representatives stated that despite making attempts, they have not been able to schedule a new meeting. They expressed disappointment that thus far, none of the additional measures on the issuance and renewal of the safe-conducts that were suggested during the work group’s first meeting have been implemented by the State (supra Considering 12). 19. In its brief of comments dated March 18, 2011, the Commission “argue[d] that the existence and maintenance of fluid communication within a context of coordination and cooperation was essential for achieving better implementation of the […] provisional measures [in question].” Likewise, in its observations of October 21, 2011, it reiterated the importance of the participation of the beneficiaries in the implementation of these measures and the need to continue with the meetings in order to achieve “proper treatment [of] each of the beneficiaries’ situations and needs.” 20. This Tribunal recalls that in its Order of July 8, 2009, it ordered the State to “create immediately and pursuant to its legal framework - a work group or team made up of State officials to effectively collaborate with the implementation [of the] measures ordered by the Court, and that it consider the participation of the beneficiaries and/or their representatives.” Regarding this, this Tribunal observes that the team was duly created; however, despite having agreed to hold work meetings every three months, the team held Ferreras, Berson Gelin, and Janty Fils-Aime (deceased). Regarding Mr. Benito Tide Méndez, up-to-date information is not available. Neither the representatives nor the Commission have indicated that he lacks a safe conduct (see Considering 31). 6