Subsequently, in their brief of June 22, 2012, they reiterated their concern for the “high level of informality and pressure that do not […] provide the confidence necessary to let the officials that have shown up at the house approach Mrs. Pierre’s children.” In that same brief, they stated that Colonel Duvergé had met with Mrs. Jenny Morón (hereinafter “Mrs. Moron”), attorney of the Dominican-Haitian Women’s Movement (hereinafter, “MUDHA”), but that his role, regarding the work with the beneficiaries, was not clear. They further alleged that Colonel Duvergé “was allegedly trained to implement the provisional measures related only to the protection of Mrs. Pierre’s children, and the Sension, […] and Gelin families,” but that there is no one responsible for the Medina Ferreras family. In their observations of June 1, 2012, the representatives informed that the State has not yet established “the most suitable mechanism to respond to any eventuality related to the safety and personal integrity” of Mrs. Pierre’s children. 11. In its observations of July 31, 2012, the Commission mentioned that the State “referred to [Colonel] Duvergé and the state agency to which he belongs as one involved in the implementation of the provisional measures” for the first time in its brief filed on July 13, 2012. It also stated that it agrees with the considerations made by the petitioners regarding the limitation of the powers granted to [Colonel] Duvergé as a police agent, taking into consideration that the issuing of the safe-conducts would be linked to the competent immigration agencies. 12. The Commission also “pointed out that during the more than 10 years these provisional measures were in force, the parties did not consider that the measures of personal protection were adequate to respond to […] the beneficiaries’ specific situation of risk.” The Commission also observed “with concern that, according to its opinion, “the State has not complied with that ordered by the Court in its Order of February 29, 2012, and that, additionally, it has made a restrictive interpretation of the obligations in force within the framework of the present provisional measures.” A.2) Regarding a work group or team that collaborates in the implementation of the measures ordered by the Court and the schedule for the work meetings 13. On June 29, 2012, the State informed that Colonel Duvergé summoned Mrs. Morón and Mrs. Siany Jeans Yudel (hereinafter “Mrs. Yudel”), from MUDHA, ”to appear and […] and express their opinion regarding the coordination of the provisional measures”, but that they failed to appear. 14. On their part, the representatives stated that Mrs. Morón and Mrs. Yudel held a meeting with Colonel Duvergé on June 18, 2012, regarding the implementation of the measures and that they requested the appointment of a high-ranking person in charge of the follow-up and coordination of the provisional measures; to be informed beforehand who they may contact in case of emergency and all communication with Mrs. Pierre’s children be carried out through the representatives. 15. In its observations of July 31, 2012, the Commission indicated that the State did not present information on the schedule of meetings in order to do a follow-up of the provisional measures, but instead it referred to two ‘summons’ served on the representatives so they would appear before the offices of [Colonel] Duvergé, which in fact took place and during which the representatives made their petitions. 5