ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF JUNE 21, 2012 PROVISIONAL MEASURES WITH REGARD TO THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC CASE OF GONZÁLEZ MEDINA ET AL. HAVING SEEN: 1. The order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) of August 30, 2011, in which it decided: 1. To require the State to adopt, immediately, all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Mario José Martín Suriel Núñez, taking into account the situation and the specific circumstances of the case. 2. To require the State to take all pertinent measures to ensure that the measures of protection ordered in [the said] order are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiary of the measures or his representatives, so that the measures are provided diligently and effectively and, in general, to keep them informed about any progress in implementation. 3. To require the State to provide the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with information concerning the provisions of the first operative paragraph of this order by October 7, 2011, at the latest. 2. The Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs delivered by the Court on February 27, 2012 (hereinafter “the Judgment”). 3. The notes of the Secretariat of the Court of November 1 and December 16, 2011, in which, on the instructions of the President of the Court, it reminded the State to forward the report required by the Court in its Order. 4. The brief of February 20, 2012, and its attachment, in which the Dominican Republic (hereinafter “the State” or “the Dominican Republic”) provided information on the implementation of these provisional measures. 5. The brief of March 6, 2012, and its attachments, in which the representatives of the beneficiary (hereinafter “the representatives”) forwarded their observations to the information provided by the State.  Judge Rhadys Abreu Blondet, a Dominican national, recused herself from hearing the case of González Medina et al. and, in accordance with Article 19(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (approved by the Court during its LXXXV Regular Period of Sessions held from November 16 to 28, 2009), she did not participate in the deliberation of these provisional measures.