that, since it had been presented belatedly, its admissibility would be determined at the appropriate time (infra para. 145). The representatives, on June 17, 2014, and the Commission, on June 24, 2014, presented their observations within the respective time frame. 21. Disbursements in application of the Assistance Fund. On January 31, 2014, the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, forwarded information to the State on the disbursements made in application of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund in this case and, as established in article 5 of the Court’s Rules for the Operation of the Fund, granted it a time frame for presenting any observations it deemed pertinent. However, the State did not present observations. 22. Provisional measures. On May 30, 2000, the Commission requested provisional measures in favor of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin who risked being “expelled” or “deported” collectively, in relation to case No. 12,271. In orders of August 18, September 14 and November 12, 2000, May 26, 2001, October 5, 2005, and February 2, 2006, the Court required the adoption of measures in favor of Benito Tide Méndez (hereinafter also “Benito Tide” or “Mr. Tide”), Antonio Sensión, Andrea Alezy, Jeanty 21 Fils-Aimé, Willian Medina Ferreras, Bersson Gelin and Rafaelito Pérez Charles, who were named as presumed victims in the Merits report of this case (supra para. 3.c.i). The Court required the State to adopt, immediately, all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries. Furthermore, it required the State to abstain from deporting or expelling Benito Tide Méndez and Antonio Sensión from its territory; to permit the immediate return to its territory of Jeanty Fils-Aimé and Willian Medina Ferreras, and the family reunification of Antonio Sensión and Andrea Alezy with their underage children in the Dominican Republic, and also to collaborate with Antonio Sensión to obtain information on the whereabouts of his family members in the State of Haiti (hereinafter also “Haiti” o “Republic of Haiti”) or in the Dominican Republic. It also required the adoption of measures in favor of the priest Pedro Ruquoy and of Solain Pie or Solain Pierre or Solange Pierre and her four children. Subsequently, the Court ordered the lifting of the provisional measures in favor of Benito Tide and Andrea Alezy at the request of the representatives themselves, and also those in favor of Jeanty Fils-Aimé and Solain Pie or Solain Pierre or Solange Pierre due to their decease. Moreover, owing to the particular situation of the beneficiaries, in the different Orders, the Court gradually lifted the measures because the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to these persons no longer persisted. Lastly, in its Order of September 7, 2012, the Court decided “[t]o lift the provisional measures” with regard to all those who had been beneficiaries, because they did not meet the requirements established in Articles 63(2) of the Convention and 27 of the Rules of Procedure, and to archive the respective file. III COMPETENCE 23. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because the Dominican Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention since April 19, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 25, 1999. The State’s objections to the Court’s competence ratione temporis in relation to some of the facts of this case will be examined in the following chapter. IV 21 Although when processing the provisional measures and in the said Order he was identified as “Janty FilsAimé,” the Commission identified him as “Jeanty Fils-Aimé” in the Merits report; hence, for the effects of this Judgment he will be referred to thus (supra footnote 6 and infra para. 86). 12