* 16. This Court points out that, even though the State indicated that Colonel Duvergé is the contact person for the beneficiaries, it limited to mentioning the actions carried out with regard to Mrs. Pierre’s children and not in relation to the other three beneficiaries of these measures. Likewise, the State did not forward a schedule of meetings for the implementation of the measures as ordered by the Court in its Order of December 1, 2012. 17. Based on the aforementioned, the Tribunal concludes that there has not been sufficient, permanent, and adequate communication between the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives and the State to agree on the implementation thereof. B) 18. Regarding the situation of the children of Mrs. Pierre By means of its brief of June 29, 2012, the State mentioned that, […] there is no urgency, let alone imminence in the materialization of a grave threat that could cause irreparable damage to the beneficiaries […] and that, specifically, compliance with the Court's order by the State is not of interest to the beneficiaries or their representatives (mainly Mrs. Solain Pierre’s four children) […] 19. The State also observed that the representatives “did […] not forward information to the Court regarding the occurrence of [any] specific fact that would place them at risk of suffering damage to their lives and personal integrity […].” In its report of July 13, 2012, it once again pointed out that the representatives had not provided [any] new piece of information regarding the persistence of the alleged situation of “[…] extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage […]” and that there is no evidence on record proving that the threats described by the representatives were issued. The State indicated that the arrests mentioned by the representatives (infra considering paragraph 21) “[…] had not been addressed specifically towards [Mrs.] Pierre’s four children, but instead it […] was a national campaign seeking to thwart the acts of violence in the country […].” Finally, the State requested that the Court rescind the measures ordered in favor of the children of Mrs. Pierre. 20. In its brief of July 5, 2012, the representatives referred to “the situation of risk suffered by the four children of [Solange] Pierre,” by indicating that it continues despite [her] death due to the strong relationship established between the Pierre surname and the movement[s] in support of Haitian immigrants and Dominicans of Haitian origin; and because of the involvement of some of her children in the organization founded by Sonia Pierre, MUDHA. 21. Specifically, of Mrs. Pierre’s children, Solange Manuela Dandre Pie works in the legal department of MUDHA, and because of that, according to the representatives, she endures public exposure on behalf of the organization, and Charlemane Dandre Pie works in the transportation department of MUDHA. Additionally, they indicated that they had experienced “[…] direct intimidations”. In this sense, they stated that on March 2, 2012, Humberto Alejandro and Minerva Leticia, both with surname Dandre Pie (hereinafter, respectively, “Humberto” and “Leticia”), along with two of Mrs. Pierre’s grandchildren, were stopped by two police agents on their way home. According to them, the police officers requested to see the documents of Mrs. Pierre’s children and then, let them go, but continued to follow them and Humberto and 6