Leticia returned home only once they had left. Finally, they mentioned that on March 17, 2012, Mrs. Pierre’s four children, along with their children and couples, were detained at an immigration police control post where they were identified as Mrs. Pierre’s children, in such a manner that they felt threatened. The representatives requested that the Court maintain the provisional measures in favor of Mrs. Pierre’s four children, “taking into consideration the multiple confrontations they have had with state agents, especially in front of their home or on the way home.” 22. In its observations of July 31, 2012, the Commission pointed out “that the situation of risk of the children of Sonia Pierre is related to the activities their mother carried out as a human rights defender, which implied certain [(sic)] that were transferred on to her next of kin and that would continue in the present.” The Commission requested that the Court “maintain the provisional measures” in favor of Mrs. Pierre’s children, “based on the persistence of certain factors that could put at risk the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries, and the lack of specific information to the contrary filed by the State, along with the lack of implementation of protective measures,” until “there is sufficient information indicating that the requirements for their maintenance no longer persist.” * 23. Based on the foregoing, in relation to the children of Solange Pierre, the State did not refer to the specific situation of each of them, even though it had previously requested the rescission of the measures adopted in their favor since it understood that, upon the death of their mother, the reasons for the respective provisional measures had ceased to exist6. Likewise, the Court notes that the State carried out several actions through Colonel Duvergé to establish contact and hold meetings with Mrs. Pierre’s children, even though there were various difficulties based on the way in which it was done. In turn, the representatives argued that they have been the target of acts of harassment, like the “detention” of the children of Mrs. Pierre together with their next of kin in a immigration police control post, as well as two of her children being followed, and the fact that two of them currently work for MUDHA, which would place them at risk. 24. Upon ordering the provisional measures in favor of Mrs. Pierre, the Court considered that their goal was her protection given that she had offered her testimony in the present provisional measures on August 8, 20007 with regard to the situation of the beneficiaries she represented. Upon her return to the Dominican Republic, she was the target of persecution and threatening telephone calls, based on which the measures were adopted in her favor, and subsequently, they were expanded in favor of her children as well.8 Therefore, the purpose of protecting the life and personal integrity of said persons was to avoid threats or reprisals linked to the statements 6 Cf. Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Court of February 29, 2011, twenty-fifth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Court of August 18, 2000, twelfth considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Court of February 2, 2006, fifteenth and sixteenth considering paragraphs. 7