11 b) it is disturbing that the State has not reported on the measures adopted to comply with the Order of the President of October 5, 2005, inasmuch as the insecure situation faced by Ms. Solain Pie or Solain Pierre or Solange Pierre’s children has worsened, threats received through phone calls have increased and their content is increasingly aggressive. Ms. Solain Pierre is currently out of the country with her children, and took said decision to protect her children from damage that she deemed imminent. The State must comply with its duty to protect the children and guarantee that they can return peacefully to the Dominican Republic; c) when Ms. Solain Pie or Solain Pierre or Solange Pierre rejected the protection of an officer of the Dominican Armed Forces, as the State pointed out in its report, she justified herself by explaining that she felt threatened by State agents. Ms. Solain Pie or Solain Pierre or Solange Pierre requested special protection by a trustworthy person, but obtained no answer from the State; d) despite the protection afforded by the State to Father Pedro Ruquoy, he was "recently taken out of the Dominican Republic by the Church, out of fear for his personal security"; e) the alleged event of August 20, 2005, when "at Oviedo military checkpoint, [beneficiary] Berson Gelim [was purportedly] stopped and returned to Haiti despite his [showing] his safe-conduct [to the authorities] constitutes serious lack of compliance with provisional measures. Upon submitting his safe-conduct, the military officer [allegedly tore it up and threw it] to the floor". Aided by a non-governmental organization, Mr. Gelim complained at the military base of that region, "where they admitted that the officer at Oviedo had made a mistake", and Mr. Gelim was allowed to enter Santo Domingo. Beneficiary Janty Fils-Aime went through a similar experience, he also had his safe-conduct torn up. The State must grant and deliver new safe-conducts to said beneficiaries; f) after the Memorandum of Understanding was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Justice, the State did not take measures to remedy this difficulty. The lack of a follow-up mechanism deprives beneficiaries of appropriate means to denounce actions or situations that infringe the measures, and g) the State has not fulfilled its duty to investigate the facts that prompted the adoption of these measures, which encourages threats and acts of aggression and harassment against the beneficiaries. 11. The State’s communication of January 28, 2006, whereby a thirty-day extension was requested to submit the twenty-eighth report on the provisional measures adopted by the Court in the instant case. The Secretary's communication of January 30, 2006, whereby, pursuant to the President’s instructions, the State was given up to the non-postponable deadline of February 28, 2006 to submit said report. CONSIDERING: