4 7. That the case covered in the petition of the Commission is not being heard by the Court as to the merits and, therefore, the adoption of urgent measures does not involve a decision on the merits of the existing controversy between the petitioners and the State. In adopting urgent measures, this Presidency is only guaranteeing that the Court is able to faithfully exercise its conventional mandate3 [;] and in whose resolution section it decided 1. To require the State of the Dominican Republic to adopt, forthwith, the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Berson Gelim, so that the provisional measures the Inter-American Court of Human Rights decides to order, when appropriate, may take relevant effects. 2. To require the State of the Dominican Republic to refrain from deporting or expelling Rafaelito Pérez Charles from its territory. 3. To require the State of the Dominican Republic to allow the immediate return of Berson Gelim to its territory, even making it possible for him to meet with his son. 4. To require the State of the Dominican Republic, in its first report on the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on August 18, 2000, to also report on the urgent measures it has adopted in compliance with this Decision, to inform the Court in its next session. 5. To require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit remarks to the report of the State of the Dominican Republic within a period of six weeks after being received. 4. The first report of the Dominican Republic (hereinafter “the State”), wherein it indicated that: a) during the visit to Batey 7, Neyba, the Clerk of the Department of Haitian Affairs of the General Migration Office, was informed that no person was known there with the name of Rafaelito Pérez Charles; b) the General Migration Office, has not been able to communicate with Berson Gelim, who is in Haiti, in order to verify his statements; c) in case Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Berson Gelim “be located” and it is verifie[d] that they are certainly Haitian nationals and their status in the Dominican Republic is illegal, it corresponds to a [S]tate’s policy and the sovereign rights of the people to expulse from its territory any foreigners that are illegally there”; d) with regards to all of the other people protected by the provisional measures, no other deportations have occurred; e) no claim has been received from Father Pedro Ruquoy and Ms. Solange Pierre, but both their lives and personal integrity are protected; and 3 Cf. James et al. Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of June 19, 1999. Series E No. 2; James et al. Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of May 11, 1999. Series E No. 2; James et al. Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of July 22, 1998. Series E No. 2; James et al. Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of July 13, 1998. Series E No. 2; James et al. Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of June 29, 1998. Series E No. 2; and James et al. Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of May 27, 1998. Series E No. 2..