7 11. The brief of April 9, 2010, whereby the State requested an extension of ten days to submit the report mentioned in operative paragraph five of the Order of March 24, 2010 (supra Having Seen 10). 12. The Secretariat’s note of April 14, 2010, whereby, following instructions of the President of the Court, the extension requested by the State (supra Having Seen 11) was granted until April 22, 2010. 13. The brief of April 22, 2010, whereby the State requested an additional ten day extension to submit the report mentioned in operative paragraph five of the Order of March 24, 2010 (supra Having Seen 10). 14. The Secretariat’s note of April 23, 2010, whereby, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the extension requested by the State (supra Having Seen 13) was granted until May 3, 2010, and it was indicated that the term shall be considered nonextendable. 15. The brief of April 30, 2010, whereby the State submitted the report mentioned in operative paragraph five of the Order of March 24, 2010 (supra Having Seen 10). 16. The brief of May 3, 2010, whereby the State submitted to the Court “a copy of the judicial decision of the habeas corpus on behalf of Mr. Juan Almonte Herrera.” 17. The communication of May 12, 2010, whereby the Inter-American Commission presented its observations on the State report of April 30, 2010 (supra Having Seen 15). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The Dominican Republic is a State Party to the American Convention since April 19, 1978, and that, pursuant to Article 62 thereof it recognized the Court’s obligatory jurisdiction on March 25, 1999. 2. Article 63(2) of the American 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 consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that: 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 4. The provision established in Article 63(2) of the Convention confers an obligatory character to the State’s adoption of the provisional measures ordered by this Court, given that the basic principle of law of international responsibility of the State, supported