3 keeping with Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter. 9. On November 7, 2005, the State supplied additional information on the case; and on January 17, 2006, it submitted its observations on the admissibility report. In those observations the State expressed its willingness to avail itself of the friendly settlement mechanism, although it pointed out that “since August 18, 2000, its communications pertaining to case 12.271 have been exclusively with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; in those communications the State has been requesting that the petitioners exhaust the domestic remedies, that they file their complaint with the Dominican authorities so that they can look into each case.” It concluded by stating that “the Dominican State has not backed away from any of its preliminary objections.” The State offered no observations on the merits of the case at that time. On January 26, 2006, the Commission sent the State a communication to remind it the procedural stage of the case and that a decision had already been made regarding the petition’s admissibility and. The State sent additional information on February 3, 2006. 10. On January 17, 2006, the petitioners requested a 60-day extension on the deadline for presenting their observations. On January 31, 2006, the Commission granted the extension. The petitioners submitted their observations on the merits on April 16, 2009. 11. On March 2, 2007, a working meeting was held with the Commission where the parties expressed their willingness to initiate the friendly settlement process. Thereafter, working meetings were held on March 20, 2010 and March 26, 2011. At the second of the two working meetings, the State provided information on Benito Tide Méndez, William Medina Ferreras, Antonio Sensión and Carmen Méndez. 12. In the friendly settlement process, the petitioners provided additional information on May 4 and November 27, 2007, April 22, 2008, November 2, 2009, January 25, March 1, June 17 and August 13, 2010, and January 6, February 15, and March 22, 2011. The State, for its part, submitted additional information on July 27, 2009, May 5, 2010, and March 29 and July 26, 2011. With its July 26, 2011 communication, the State enclosed a copy of the long-form birth certificates of Benito Tide Méndez, William Medina Ferreras and Antonio Sensión. 13. On June 28, 2011, the petitioners requested that the IACHR proceed to process the case and issue the Merits Report indicated in Article 50 of the ACHR. On September 15, 2011, the petitioners sent a communication in which they requested that, given the amount of time that had passed, the State be deemed to have forfeited its opportunity to submit its observations on the merits and that the report on the merits of this case be drawn up without further delay. 14. On September 26 and 28, 2011, the Commission advised the parties that given the length of time that had passed and in consideration of the petitioners’ request, the Commission, in application of Article 40 of its Rules of Procedure, was terminating its intervention in the friendly settlement procedure and had decided to continue to move forward with the processing of the case. A. Provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 15. On May 30, 2000, the Commission sent a brief to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court”) in which it requested that provisional measures be adopted to require the State to suspend the Dominican authorities’ massive expulsions-deportations of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent, since these measures placed at risk the life and physical integrity of those deported and of family members who are separated, especially under-age children who are left abandoned. 16. On August 18, 2000, the Court granted provisional measures for Benito Tide Méndez, Antonio Sension, Andrea Alezy, Janty Fils-Aime and William Medina Ferreras, in order to safeguard their lives and personal integrity. On September 14, 2000, the Court decided to amplify the provisional measures to also include Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Berson Gelin. As of the date of this report, the