15 Fils-Aime, who allegedly had their original safe-conducts destroyed by policemen. They expressed their concern for the State's failure to provide information on the measures adopted to comply with President's Order of October 5, 2005, since the situation of insecurity faced by Ms. Solain Pie or Solain Pierre or Solange Pierre's children has allegedly worsened, which fact purportedly caused them to leave the country with their mother. Therefore, the State must fulfill its duty to protect the children and guarantee that they can return, untroubled, to the Dominican Republic. They referred to the alleged worsening situation of expulsion operations against Haitians or persons of Haitian origin, which could generate a risky situation for the beneficiaries of these measures, inasmuch as they belong to said population. In view of the foregoing, they reiterated the need to go on guaranteeing the effectiveness and efficacy of the safe-conducts, which constitute a guarantee that their beneficiaries will not be expelled from the Dominican Republic. Lastly, they affirmed that the State has not fulfilled its duty to investigate the facts that prompted the adoption of these measures, which may foster threats and acts of aggression and harassment against the beneficiaries, and reiterated the importance of the active participation of beneficiaries in the supervision and implementation mechanism of provisional measures (supra Having Seen clauses 6 and 10). 12. That the Commission has affirmed, inter alia, that the State must adopt, forthwith, such steps as may be necessary to ensure the efficacy of these measures, especially in connection with restoring, as soon as possible, the safe-conducts to the persons who were deprived of them, considering the vulnerability they face in light of this fact; and in connection with protecting Ms. Solain Pie or Solain Pierre or Solange Pierre's children, "who, out of fear of the threats they received, are out of their country". It held that, although beneficiaries are called to collaborate with the elucidation of the facts, in no case should [they] be charged with the responsibility of the commencement or efficacy of the investigation that the State should foster”. Finally, it reiterated the lack of information on the actions taken so that the measures of protection are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiaries or their representatives and the need for the State to submit “specific, accurate, upto-date and detailed [information] pertaining to [...] the matter giving rise to and effectiveness to the protection requested for all beneficiaries”, taking into consideration the "persistent public information on mass deportations or ‘repatriation’ processes of people of Haitian origin or descent”, (supra Having Seen clauses 5 and 9). 13. That this Tribunal notes the importance of furnishing the aforementioned beneficiaries with safe-conducts (supra Having Seen clause 4), inasmuch as they constitute measures to safeguard the life or physical integrity of said persons, and, as appropriate, to prevent them from being deported or expelled from the Dominican Republic. Hence, the Court is concerned about the statements of the Commission and the representatives that state authorities allegedly destroyed Mr. Berson Gelim's and Janty Fils-Aime's safe-conducts (supra Having Seen clauses 9 and 10). As a consequence, the State, pursuant to what it informed, must proceed with the relevant actions to restore said documents and conduct relevant investigations (supra Having Seen 8). 14. That the Court has learned, through information provided by the Commission, the representatives and the State, that on August 10, 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic entered a judgment declaring the unconstitutionality of the Memorandum of Understanding, an agreement signed by the State Secretariat