8 68(1) of the American Convention, by not complying with the obligation to inform the Court about the implementation of the provisional measures ordered. 10. That, in response to the request for relevant information to enable the Court to assess the pertinence of maintaining the provisional measures it had ordered in force, Mr. Fleury and his representative submitted some information (supra having seen paragraphs 26 and 29) and the Commission, in one of its most recent briefs, stated that it considered it pertinent to maintain them in force because, according to the available information and considering the acts of intimidation against human rights defenders in Haiti in general, the life and personal integrity of Mr. Fleury was still in danger. The Court notes that the Commission, which had requested these provisional measures, did not submit any additional or independent information to that presented by Mr. Fleury and his representative on the actual situation of the beneficiary of the measures. The Court has found that the supervisory role played by the Inter-American Commission is particularly important for adequately and effectively monitoring the implementation of the provisional measures it orders.10 11. That provisional measures are exceptional by nature; they are issued in function of the needs for protection and, once ordered, must be maintained, provided that the Court finds that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to the rights of the persons protected by them subsist.11 12. That the merits stage of case No. 12,459, which gave rise to these provisional measures, is being processed before the Commission (supra having seen paragraph 23) 13. That the new representatives requested an expansion of the measures in favor of the next of kin of Lysias Fleury; namely his wife, Lilienne Benoit and his three children, Heulinger, Flemingkov and Rose Metchnikov, who still live in Haiti. 14. That, in the terms of Articles 63(2) of the American Convention and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure, “[w]ith respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 15. That the Court observes that, insofar as this matter has yet to be submitted to its consideration, an expansion of the provisional measures ordered must be requested by the Commission. In its most recent observations, the Commission stated that “even though the provisional measures can be lifted in relation to Lysias Fleury, given that he does not reside in Haiti, the reasons based on which they were ordered subsist for his wife and his three children; consequently, the provisional measures should be expanded to protect them.” More specifically, the Commission recapitulated the facts that gave rise to the petition and to the actual provisional measures, emphasizing that, in June 2002, Mr. Fleury had been arrested while at home, after which he had allegedly been “severely beaten by civil and police agents, […] continually threatened by these individuals [and subsequently] detained for 17 hours, being subjected to ‘degrading treatment’ which resulted in ‘grave injuries.’” The Commission indicated that Mr. Fleury had alleged that “owing to the lack of investigation into the facts and the sanction of those responsible by the State, a situation of impunity existed, which meant that the presumed authors of the violations he had suffered were at liberty”; consequently, he felt threatened and left home for five years to live in hiding in a friend’s house. The Commission also indicated that Mr. Fleury had been 10 11 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, supra note 7, fourteenth considering paragraph. Cf. Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, seventh considering paragraph.