30, 1999, the State requested a fifteen day extension. This extension was granted on December 7, 1999. On December 6, 1999, the petitioners submitted additional information. On December 15, 1999, the Dominican State submitted its first report on the precautionary measures requested by the Commission. On December 23, the IACHR received the report from the State and duly forwarded it to the petitioners, with a request that they submit their observations within thirty days. On December 22, 1999, the Inter-American Commission requested that the petitioners submit more detailed information regarding their request for precautionary measures. 5. On March 10, 2000, the Human Rights Clinic of Columbia University School of Law submitted information about the case and requested the adoption of provisional measures by the Inter-American Court. In a written communication dated March 16, the petitioners requested that the Human Rights Clinic of Columbia University School of Law join the case as a petitioner. On May 30, 2000, the Commission sent the request for provisional measures to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; the latter issued a Resolution on June 16 of that year scheduling a hearing to hear from both parties. On July 21, of that year, the Commission sent information on the need for experts and on August 1, 2000, the State sent a communication objecting to the appointment of experts. The Commission forwarded its observations on August 4, 2000. 6. On August 18, 2000, at the request of the IACHR, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a resolution ordering provisional measures on behalf of Benito Tide Méndez, Antonio Sension, Andrea Alezi, Janty Fils-Aime, Berson Gelim, Solange Pierre, Padre Pedro Ruquoy, and William Medina Ferreras.3 This was followed by a continuous exchange of information from the petitioners, the Commission, and the State regarding the provisional measures issued by the Inter-American Court. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 7. Berson Gelim, Janty Fils-Aime, Andrea Alezi and William Medina Ferreras were expelled from the Dominican Republic and separated from their families to be taken to Haiti; Benito Tide Méndez, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, and Antonio Sension, who have yet to be reunited with their families, suffered mistreatment at the hands of the Dominican authorities. Some family members of the alleged victims also were deported to Haiti. 17. Even though Rafaelito Pérez Charles was born in the Dominican Republic, he was forcibly deported without being allowed the chance to prove his Dominican nationality. Berson Gelim was arbitrarily expelled, along with his wife and daughters; in the process he was separated from his son, who remained behind in the Dominican Republic. Benito Tide Méndez, also a Dominican citizen of Haitian descent, was expelled without being given the opportunity to prove his Dominican citizenship. 18. Andrea Alezi, a Haitian who had resided in the Dominican Republic since she was 13 years old, was separated from her two children—with whom she has not been reunited—and was not allowed to contact her family during her detention or present any argument to contest her deportation. Janty Fils-Aime, a Dominican by birth, was deported along with his whole family, and William Medina Ferreras, a Dominican expelled with his wife and children, has been living in Haiti since his deportation and has been unable to return. 19. The petitioners add that the Dominican authorities do not adequately keep track of their deportations, since they do not follow any procedures. 20. The petitioners claim that since November 1999, the Dominican State has implemented a national policy of deportation and expulsion of Haitian citizens, both documented and 3 Resolution on the provisional measures requested by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with respect to the Dominican Republic, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Order of the Court, August 18, 2000, paras. 12 and 13. 2