5 necessary to obtain "detailed information on the activities of each beneficiary [..] in relation to their actions [to] solve their migratory situation and their claims before Courts". Safe-conducts "are not identity cards or passports [but] provisional documents granted, in this case, in favor of the beneficiaries […], whose sole aim is to allow free national transit, without any risk whatsoever; i) these measures are related to the "situation of clandestinity, illegality and lack of documents caused by the beneficiaries of the Provisional Measures themselves and not by the State", such a situation "must be solved [...] by Dominican authorities and, subsidiarily, by the Court"; j) time “has proved that [the] situation of extreme gravity and urgency denounced by the Commission did not correspond to the actual situation". When the Commission requested the measures it did not "investigate the truthfulness of [the] complaint filed by the [beneficiaries]". "Case [No.] 12,271, [pending before the Commission,] refers to certain persons, it individualizes them, it is not a ‘class action’"; k) “if [beneficiaries] and their representatives wish to file a claim or complaint, they should do so, once and for all, before the Courts of Justice of the Dominican Republic"; l) it submitted a report, prepared by the Consejo Estatal del Azúcar (State Sugar Council), on the living conditions at the bateyes, and afterwards, "call[ed] upon relevant authorities to conduct a study on the bateyes and the different initiatives undertaken by the Dominican Republic to improve the living conditions of [their] inhabitants", and m) “it has properly complied with each and every one of the provisional measures ordered by [the] Court", and the safe-conducts granted to the beneficiaries and their next of kin are fully in force. 5. The briefs submitted by the Inter-American Commission on June 29, July 16, October 17 and December 14, 2001; April 12, June 25, August 22 and October 28, 2002; January 7, March 5, May 20, July 10, September 15 and November 21, 2003; January 28, April 26, July 19, October 8 and December 13, 2004, and March 10, June 28, August 19 and September 29, 2005, wherein it stated, inter alia, that: a) the State continues to refer to admissibility criteria and to the merits of the case, which are the subject of a possible contentious case, when, in fact, the petition that prompted these measures is not pending before the Court; b) Ms. Solain Pie or Solain Pierre or Solange Pierre and Father Pedro Ruquoy are still at risk, “by reason of their participation in the [public] hearing [held on August 8, 2000] before the Inter-American Court”, which has fostered a situation in which they continue to “be the target of threats and attacks”. Ms. Solain Pie or Solain Pierre or Solange Pierre has been “receiving daily telephone threats, and […on] April 9 [, 2000] she received a telephone call warning her ‘that people who do not speak so much last longer’”. It pointed out that representatives have expressed that the situation of both of the aforementioned beneficiaries has worsened, and also mentioned that the threat against Ms. Solain Pie or Solain Pierre or Solange Pierre has been extended to