representatives may turn for issues related to the implementation what was ordered in these measures; likewise, the State was ordered to renew or issue the safe-conducts to the beneficiaries of the provisional measures as soon as possible; c) create a work group or team of State officials with the participation of the beneficiaries and/or their representatives to effectively collaborate with the implementation of the measures ordered by the Court, and d) coordinate with the beneficiary to appoint a suitable person to provide protection to Ms. Solange Pierre.7 A) Regarding the appointment of a State authority and the issuing and renewal of safeconducts 9. In its brief dated September 7, 2009, the State reported that it had appointed Ricardo Ruiz and Ana Lorna Regalado, human rights analysts with the State Secretariat of Foreign Affairs, to be in charge of verifying the implementation of the provisional measures. 10. Regarding the renewal and issuance of safe-conducts for the beneficiaries, in communications dated July 20, 2010, and March 28, 2011, the State reported that on April 7 and 10, 2010, it delivered the safe-conducts to the beneficiaries, with delivery to six unnamed beneficiaries pending because they were not able to be present when the safeconducts were handed out. The State indicated that the beneficiaries could go to the General Immigration Office to receive the pending safe-conducts. Subsequently, through its reports of September 1 and November 4, 2011, the State indicated that the representatives had had no further communication with the General Immigration Office and that thus, the safe-conducts had not been delivered. 11. In their comments dated March 16, 2010, the representatives suggested granting more power to the State agency that would be designated to receive the beneficiaries’ complaints regarding problems with the use of the safe-conducts. This was so that the agency may “issue new documents or replace those that [may have] problems.” Such an action would eliminate the need to turn to this Court to request the measure every time it becomes necessary. In a number of briefs, the representatives indicated that no governmental authority whatsoever had contacted them regarding delivery of the pending safe-conducts. They added that the State “continues to transfer the burden of compliance with the measures to the beneficiaries.” Likewise, the representatives indicated that they have unsuccessfully tried to contact Rafael Cruz, legal counsel of the General Immigration Office. It seems he no longer holds the position, and they have not been informed of the name of the new person in charge. 12. Additionally, in the brief dated June 8, 2010, the representatives forwarded to the Court a list with the names of the people whose safe-conducts were issued or renewed by the State. From the information filed it can be concluded that safe-conducts were received by the five members of the Medina Ferreas family and the nine members of the Fils-Aime family (both families reside in Anse-A-Pitre, Haiti); and the four members of the Sensión family, the eight members of the Jean family, and Mr. Berson Gelin (all residents of the Dominican Republic). The people who have not yet received the safe-conducts were Carolina Medina Ferreras and Nene Fils-Aime, both residents of Anse-A-Pitre, Haiti; and William Gelin, Reyita Antonia Sensión, Emiliano Mache Sensión, Maximiliano Sensión, and the newborn baby girl of Ana Lidia Sensión, all residents of Dominican Republic. Similarly, in their briefs of October 7 and November 30, 2011, the representatives once again forwarded 7 Cf. Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, operative paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5. 4