clear and detailed report on the specific actions taken towards implementation of those measures and ordered the Commission and the representatives of the beneficiaries (hereinafter, the “representatives”) to submit a report “proving the current situation of extreme gravity and urgency to protect irreparable damage regarding each of the mentioned beneficiaries, in relation to the purpose for which the present measures were adopted.” Likewise, it ordered that the measures in favor of Solange Pierre and her children be maintained. 5. The Order of the Court of February 29, 2012, through which it “[d]eclare[d] that the provisional measures granted in favor of […] Solange Pie[rre] be rescinded” and it ordered that the provisional measures in favor of Messrs. Sension, Medina, Gelin and Mrs. Pierre’s four children be maintained for an additional period of at least six months as of the notification of said Order. Likewise, it requested that the State present a detailed report on “the specific actions taken for the implementation of the present measures”, and that the State, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission present a clear and detailed report on the current situation of extreme gravity and urgency to protect each of Mrs. Pierre’s children from irreparable harm, in relation to the purpose for which these measures were adopted and, as appropriate, provide grounds for maintaining the measures in their favor”, pursuant to the information required in the twenty-first, twenty-ninth, and forty-eighth considering paragraphs of said Order. 6. The reports presented by the State on June 29 and July 13, 2012. 7. The representatives’ briefs submitted on June 1 and 22, July 5, and August 2, 2012. 8. The communication of this Secretariat of July 20, 2012, in which, inter alia, on the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) the representatives were granted a non-renewable term that expired on July 26, 2012, to forward the respective observations to the state’s report of July 13, 2012, and to refer specifically to the current situation of Messrs. Sension, Medina, and Gelin, in light of that ordered by the Court in considering paragraph 33 and the seventh Operative Paragraph of the Order of December 1, 2011. 9. The brief of the Inter-American Commission of July 31, 2012. 10. The State’s brief of August 21, 2012, in which it referred to the observations of the Commission and of the representatives of July 31 and August 2, 2012, respectively, and it did not present additional information regarding the implementation of the provisional measures. In this respect, the Court notes that the State had already presented the corresponding information (supra having seen paragraph 6) and that the brief of August 21 did not respond to the request made by the Court. Based on the above, the Court decides not to admit said State's communication. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The Dominican Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since 2