jurisdiction of the Court” (supra having seen paragraph 1) until the latter adopts a final decision regarding said case. It took into consideration, inter alia, “the vulnerable situation in which the beneficiaries and [alleged] victims of the case are, the need to guarantee their participation in the proceedings and the context in which the accusations against Haitians or Dominicans of Haitian origin have worsened” as well as “the recent legislative reforms.” It pointed out that, in its understanding, “the situation of risk […] of Messrs. Sensi[o]n, Gelin, and Medina […] is related[…] to the summary deportation they suffered from the Dominican Republic more than 10 years ago.” 36. In relation to Messrs. Sensión, Gelin and Medina, the Court deems that the parties did not present the necessary information to evaluate whether the situation faced by the beneficiaries persists that led the Court to maintain the provisional measures adopted in their favor in 2000, that is more than 12 years ago.11 To this end, the arguments presented by the Inter-American Commission regarding the alleged reasons that hindered the return of the beneficiaries to the Dominican Republic (supra considering paragraph 33) are not precise in relation to specific facts that may show the particular circumstances in which each one of the beneficiaries currently live. The representatives, in turn, had made reference to certain aspects related to the implementation of the measures, but not to the possible persistence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency to the detriment of such persons (supra considering paragraph 31). 37. The Court recalls its opinion about the rigorous assessment it must make to decide the maintenance of the measures, in comparison with the analysis it must make to decide if they should be granted (supra considering paragraph 25) However, it recalls that in its Order of December 1, 2011, it indicated, in relation to Messrs. Sensión, Gelin and Medina, that: [i]n order to evaluate whether to maintain the provisional measures, the Court finds it necessary for both the representatives and the Inter-American Commission to submit precise and detailed reports on the current situation of each of the mentioned beneficiaries with regard to the object for which the present measures were adopted. Where necessary, they must justify the reasons for maintaining the measures to their benefit with regard to their precautionary nature in relation to the merits case being processed […]12 38. Then the Court, in view of the information presented between December 1, 2011 and February 29, 2012, determined, on the latter date, pursuant with the decisions made on December 1, 2011, it was appropriate to “maintain the […] provisional measures in favor of Messrs. […] Gelin[, …] Sensión, and [Medina…] for an additional period of at least six months, [and that] the Court would assess in due course the maintenance of those measures.” As it springs from the above (supra considering paragraph 36), after February 29, 2012, the Court did not receive precise and detailed information on the beneficiaries’ situation. Without detriment to the foregoing, the Court emphasizes that the State indicated that Mr. Sensión and Mr. Medina have, apart from safe-conducts, Dominican identification and voter's cards and that Mr. Gelin has a safe-conduct without expiration date (supra considering 11 Cf. Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic, Supra note 6, thirty-first and thirty-fourth considering paragraphs. 12 Cf. Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Court of December 1, 2011, thirty-third considering paragraph. 10