5 24. The Secretariat’s note of April 9, 2008, indicating that it had not received any information from the State and, on the instructions of the President of the Court, requesting the State to forward information by April 22, 2008, at the latest. 25. The notes of the Secretariat of July 7, 2008, advising that the State had not forwarded the requested information and, on the instructions of the President of the Court, requesting the Commission and Mr. Fleury or his representatives to present, by July 17, 2008, at the latest, all relevant information so that the Court could assess the pertinence of maintaining the said measures and, in particular, whether, in the terms of Article 63(2) of the Convention, a situation of extreme gravity and urgency subsisted that made it necessary to avoid irreparable damage to the beneficiary of the measures. 26. The brief of July 17, 2008, in which Katherine Fait of the American University’s International Human Rights Clinic, identifying herself as a representative of Lysias Fleury, requested a two-week extension to submit her observations on the said provisional measures. 27. The Secretariat’s note of July 23, 2008, certifying that, according to the provisional measures file, up until that time, Mr. Fleury had been represented by the Commission Épiscopale Nationale Justice et Paix. Consequently, before granting the requested extension, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat asked Mr. Fleury to confirm as soon as possible whether Katherine Fait or anyone else from the American University’s International Human Rights Clinic represented him in these proceedings. Furthermore, it advised that the two-week extension requested by the Inter-American Commission to present its own observations had been granted as of the reception of the observations of the representatives. 28. The note of Lysias Fleury of July 25, 2008, confirming that he was represented by Meetali Jain, a lawyer with the American University’s International Human Rights Clinic in Washington D.C., and her students, and that the Commission Épiscopale Nationale Justice et Paix d’Haïti no longer represented him. 29. The brief of the new representatives of July 31, 2008, advising that Mr. Fleury had gone into exile in the United States of America. They asked the Court to maintain the provisional measures in his favor and to expand the measures to his wife and his three children. 30. The notes of the Secretariat of August 13, 2008, in which, on the instructions of the President of the Court, it reiterated to the State and to the Commission that, by August 25, 2007, at the latest, they should present the relevant information requested in the notes of July 7, 2008 (supra having seen paragraph 25). 31. The brief of August 27, 2008, in which the Inter-American Commission presented the observations requested (supra having seen paragraph 30). Considering: 1. That Haiti has been a State Party to the Convention since September 27, 1977, and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 20, 1998. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention establishes that “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, in matters it has under