10 5. That it has not been proven, either at the public hearing of August 8, 2000, or in the writings submitted to the Court, that the Dominican Republic maintains a State policy of deportations and massive expulsions in violation of the specific rules of the Convention; however, the testimonies presented at the cited public hearing enable the Court to establish a prima facie assumption of the occurrence of cases where individuals are subject to abuse. 6. That information was provided at the cited public hearing, on bordering communities or “bateyes” whose inhabitants are subject to forced repatriations, deportations or expulsions, for which reason the Court deems it necessary to obtain additional information on the situation of the members of such communities or “bateyes.” 7. That, in a positive manner and at the same public hearing, the State has expressed its willingness to improve the repatriation mechanisms and the deportation and expulsion procedures; correct certain practices, and bring under the law those responsible for abuse or ignorance with respect to rights in connection with such repatriations. 8. That this Court deems it indispensable to identify individually the persons in danger of suffering irreparable damage, for which reason it is not feasible to order provisional measures without specific names, for protecting generically those in a given situation or those who are affected by certain measures; however, it is possible to protect the individualized members of a community.7 9. That the events presented by the Commission in its request show prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency as to the rights to life, personal integrity, special protection for children in the family, and to residence and movement, of the persons identified in the June 13, 2000, Addendum of the Commission (supra, Having Seen N° 3), and specified in the operative part of this Order of the Court (infra operative paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). 10. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation that the States Parties have to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in that covenant and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 11. That it is the responsibility of the Dominican Republic to adopt security measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction; this responsibility becomes still more evident in relationship to those who may be bound by proceedings before the supervising organs of the American Convention. 12. That, on the basis of what has been affirmed by the witnesses during the August 8, 2000, public hearing, and the submissions of the Commission, Father Pedro Ruquoy and Ms. Solange Pierre may be the victims of reprisals in the Dominican Republic as a consequence of their depositions before this Court, for which the adoption of provisional measures is required to keep them from suffering irreparable damage. 7 Cfr. Inter alia, Álvarez et al. Case, Provisional Measures. Order of January 21, 1998. Series E N° 2; Clemente Teherán et al. Case, Provisional Measures. Order of June 19, 1998. Series E N° 2; Digna Ochoa and Plácido et al. Case. Provisional Measures. Order of November 17, 1999. Series E N° 2.