3 victims may file their complaints and make their statements, both nationally and internationally, without pressures or retaliations. 3. The decision of the President of the Court of September 14, 2000, whose considering section pointed out: 1. That the Dominican Republic is a State Party to the American Convention since April 19, 1978, and acknowledged the Court's jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, on March 25, 1999. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention provides that [i]n cases of extreme seriousness and urgency, and when irreparable damage to people need to be prevented, the Court, in the matters it is hearing, will be able to take the provisional measures it deems relevant. If the matters are not yet under its jurisdiction, it will be able to take action upon the Commission’s request. 3. That, under Articles 25(1) and 25(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, [a]t any stage of the seriousness and urgency prevented, the Court, by the parties, shall be able under Article 63(2) of the proceeding, provided they are cases of extreme and when irreparable damage to people need to be the powers invested in it or at the request of one of to order the provisional measures it deems relevant, Convention. [...] [i]f the Court is not in session, the president, in consultation with the permanent commission and, if possible, with the other judges, will require the respective government to issue the necessary urgent orders to insure the effectiveness of the provisional measures the Court might then take in its next session. 4. That the information submitted by the Commission in its petition and its reports about the current situation of Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Berson Gelim demonstrate prima facie an extremely serious and urgent situation regarding the rights to life, personal integrity, circulation, and residence of said persons, as well as the right to . special protection of children in the family, in the case of Berson Gelim.1 The standard of prima facie appreciation of a case and the application of presumptions in face of the needs for protection have prompted this Court to order provisional measures at different . times.2 5. That Article 1(1) of the Convention provides for the duty of States Party to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in this treaty and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to its jurisdiction. 6. That it is the responsibility of the Dominican Republic to adopt safety measures in protecting all persons subject to its jurisdiction; this duty becomes even more evident in connection to those people who are bound by processes before the supervision organs of the American Convention. 1 2 Cf. Articles 4, 5, 22, 17 and 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights, respectively. Cf. inter alia, Constitutional Court Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of April 7, 2000; Digna Ochoa and Plácido et al. Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of November 17, 1999. Series E No. 2; Cesti Hurtado Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of June 3, 1999. Series E No. 2; James et al. Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of May 27, 1999. Series E No. 2; Clemente Teherán et al. Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of June 19, 1998. Series E No. 2; Alvarez et al. Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of July 22, 1997. Series E No. 2; Blake Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of August 16, 1995. Series E No. 1; Carpio Nicolle Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of July 26, 1995. Series E No. 1; Carpio Nicolle Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of June 4, 1995. Series E No. 1; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of December 7, 1994. Series E No. 1; and Colotenango Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of June 22, 1994. Series E No. 1.