4 (supra having seen paragraph 12). Consequently, on the instructions of the President of the Court, it requested the State, the Commission, Mr. Fleury and his representatives to forward, by August 15, 2005, at the latest, any information they deemed relevant so that the Court could assess the pertinence of maintaining the said measures. 15. The brief of August 15, 2005, in which the Commission presented information in response to the Secretariat’s request in the said note (supra having seen paragraph 14). In this regard, it stated, inter alia, that it considered it pertinent to maintain the measures that had been ordered. 16. The Secretariat’s note of September 6, 2005, advising that it had not received any information from the State, or from Mr. Fleury or his representatives, concerning its request (supra having seen paragraph 16). 17. The notes of the Secretariat of February 12, 2007, in which, on the instructions of the President, it again asked the State, the Commission, and Mr. Fleury or his representatives to submit relevant information by March 5, 2007, at the latest, so that the Court could assess the pertinence of maintaining the said measures. 18. The briefs of February 24, 26 and 28, 2007, in which Lysias Fleury and Jan Hanssens, Director of the Commission Épiscopale Nationale Justice et Paix presented information concerning the said measures in response to the Secretariat’s request (supra having seen paragraph 17). In these briefs, they indicated, inter alia, that the State had not adopted the measures ordered by the Court in favor of Mr. Fleury and that he had been subjected to threats and surveillance; they also described some incidents in this regard. In addition, they indicated that Mr. Fleury continued working “normally” for the Commission Épiscopale Nationale Justice et Paix. 19. The brief of March 5, 2007, presenting the Commission’s observations in response to the Secretariat’s request (supra having seen paragraph 20), mentioned, inter alia, that it “was unable to provide the Court with any additional or independent information with regard to the incidents [described by Lysias Fleury]” and considered that it was pertinent to maintain the said measures. 20. The Secretariat’s note of March 14, 2007, advising that it had not received any information from the State and, on the instructions of the President, requesting the State to submit its observations on the briefs presented by Mr. Fleury, his representatives and the Commission, as well as any other relevant information by March 28, 2007, at the latest, so that the Court could assess the pertinence of maintaining the said measures. 21. The Secretariat’s note of April 19, 2007, indicating that the information that the State had been asked to provide had not been forwarded and, on the instructions of the President, requesting the State to forward this information by April 27, 2007, at the latest. 22. The Secretariat’s note of July 20, 2007, in which, on the instructions of the President, it requested the Commission to inform the Court, by August 31, 2007, at the latest, about the procedural status of this matter, which was being processing before it. 23. The communication of August 30, 2007, in which the Commission advised that “the Inter-American Commission was processing the merits stage of case No. 12,459.”