should not forget the essentially provisional and temporary nature that protective measures must have.12 31. The Court finds that it cannot be concluded from the information provided by the parties that the alleged attacks carried out against Mr. Berson Gelin in Haiti are related with the purpose of these measures, as the attacks took place outside the jurisdiction of the Dominican Republic. The Court will therefore not rule on this with regard to this matter. 32. Regarding Mr. Benito Tide Méndez, neither the representatives nor the Commission have provided updated information on his situation. The representatives stated that they lost communication with Mr. Benito Tide in 2009, and therefore as of that date, they have not forwarded any information whatsoever that could prove incidents against said beneficiary and allow for an assessment of his situation. The Court finds that the situation of extreme gravity, urgency, and imminent risk on which the adoption of these provisional measures to his benefit was based no longer persists. His situation is therefore no longer characterized by the standards set forth in Article 63(2) of the Convention. Thus, the Court considers it appropriate to lift the provisional measures to his benefit. 33. Finally, the Court considers it appropriate to maintain the measures adopted to the benefit of Berson Gein, Antonio Sensión, and William Medina Ferreras for an additional period of at least eight months. In order to evaluate whether to maintain the provisional measures, the Tribunal finds it necessary for both the representatives and the InterAmerican Commission to submit precise and detailed reports on the current situation of each of the mentioned beneficiaries with regard to the object for which the present measures were adopted. Where necessary, they must justify the reasons for maintaining the measures to their benefit with regard to their precautionary nature in relation to the merits case being processed before the Commission (supra Considering 7). E) Regarding Ms. Solain Pie or Solain Pierre or Solange Pierre and her children 34. In its reports dated March 25 and September 1, 2011, the State reiterated that since the establishment of the provisional measures to the benefit of Mrs. Pierre and her children, “there have been no attacks on [their physical and person] integrity.” Likewise, it added that Solange Pierre has turned down the State’s offers of security. For this reason, the State asked that the provisional measures granted to her benefit be lifted. 35. In its report dated November 4, 2011, with regard to the harassment and threats allegedly suffered by the beneficiary - reported by the representatives in their comments dated April 29 and June 7, 2011 (infra para. 36) - the State indicated that it had not been notified of these facts, reiterating that “in the 10 years since the provisional measures were adopted, the beneficiaries have not reported a single act of aggression against them.” 36. Regarding this, the representatives stated in comments dated April 29 and October 7, 2011, that Solange Pierre continues to be subjected to attacks and campaigns that seek to discredit her based on her work, among them: a) arrests by police officers on more than 10 different occasions, all of which have been unjustified, based on her physical appearance and related with the work she does. Additionally, she has been denied telephone communication and on one occasion, one of her children was forced to do “30 push-ups” on 12 Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic, supra footnote 7, Considering 20. 9