measures in his favor as it did in the cases of Messrs. Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Andrea Alezy in its Order of July 8, 2009. 28. On that occasion, the State expressed that Mr. Gelin’s safe-conduct was renewed and delivered and that it does not have an expiration date. It mentioned that, given he has that safe-conduct, the beneficiary’s risk to be repatriated has ceased. The State also indicated that Mr. Gelin has not mentioned any news or the occurrence of any fact that could put his life and personal integrity at risk. 29. The State also referred to the fact that Mr. Medina’s safe-conduct was renewed in March 2010 and that he already has his Dominican identification and voter’s card, thus the risk of being repatriated has ceased. It also observed that this beneficiary has not mentioned any news or the occurrence of any fact that could put his life and personal integrity at risk. 30. Finally, the State mentioned that Messrs. Gelin and Medina are living in Haiti voluntarily and that “the Dominican State can only adopt measures regarding compliance with the American Convention […] in relation [to] the people who live within the territory over which it exercises sovereignty.” It also indicated that “[n]either of them has any objection by the Dominican authorities to reside in the country, since Mr. […] Gelin, in his capacity as Haitian citizen, has [a] safe-conduct […] and Mr. […] Medina […] is a Dominican citizen.” 31. The representatives did not submit specific and updated information on the situation of Messrs. Sension, Gelin, and Medina, regarding the level of risk in relation to the enjoyment of their rights. They did present considerations on the implementation of said measures in their brief of June 22, 2012, and they informed that Colonel Duvergé was in charge of implementing the provisional measures in favor of Messrs. Sensión and Gelin, but he has not done so. On that occasion, they indicated that Mr. Medina lives on the Haitian margin of the border; that the measures in his favor were not implemented and that he was not included in the list of the “families” regarding which Colonel Duvergé must implement the measures. 32. The representatives requested that the Court “reiterate to the Dominican State the need to comply with all the measures ordered by this Honorable Court in favor of all the families, not only the families on the Dominican side of the border.” 33. In its observations of July 31, 2012, the Commission noted that the effective return of all the beneficiaries to the Dominican Republic was not possible due to different reasons, among others, the delay in establishing an adequate mechanism to respond to their specific situation, the difficulties related to the issuing and renewal of the safe-conducts, and certain obstacles for its correct implementation, due to the apparent lack of knowledge by some state authorities of its validity. 34. It also observed with concern that, in its last reports, the State has radically changed its position from that of ‘full disposition to hand over the remaining safe-conducts’ to the current one in which it considers that ‘no other safe-conducts still have to be issued’ and the lack of information regarding the measures adopted for the implementation of the present provisional measures. 35. The Commission requested that the Tribunal maintain the provisional measures in favor of the alleged victims of “case No 12.271, recently submitted to the 9