7. The communication of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of July 17, 2009, whereby following instructions of the President of the Court at the time, it asked the State to present a detailed report on the facts alleged to have occurred with regard to Mr. Berson Gelin and the measures implemented in response by no later than July 23, 2009. 8. The Secretariat’s communication of August 27, 2009, whereby it requested that the State submit a complementary report by no later than September 7, 2009, stating the steps taken toward implementing what was ordered in the third and fourth operative paragraphs of the Order of July 8, 2009, and where relevant, providing more detail on the impact that the constitutional reform described in its report could have on the implementation of those operative paragraphs. Likewise, it asked the State to indicate the specific actions taken toward implementing the measures ordered to the benefit of each of the beneficiaries. The Secretariat’s communication of June 3, 2010 through which it requested that the 1 representatives forward a list with the names of the people who received the safe-conducts. 9. The communications of June 8, 2010, and October 7, 2011, whereby the representatives forwarded to the Court a list with the names of the people who received safeconducts and those pending delivery, as well as a list with the names of those whose document was not renewed. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The Dominican Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since April 19, 1978, and has recognized the jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to Article 62 of the same, on March 25, 1999. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, “In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. The provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention make it obligatory for the State to adopt the provisional measures ordered by this Tribunal, as the basic principles of International Law, backed by international case-law, indicate that States must comply with 2 their obligations under the Convention in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). 1 In the Order of the Court of August 18, 2000, the Court asked the State to provide the beneficiaries with identification documents indicating that they are beneficiaries of provisional measures of protection ordered by the Inter-American Court to prevent them from being deported or expelled from the Dominican Republic. Regarding this, the State granted safe conducts “in order for the beneficiaries to be able to clear up and legalize their migratory status.” The State indicated that the safe conducts “are not national identification cards or passports [but] only provisional documents granted, in this case, [...] to the beneficiaries [... and] whose only purpose is to allow them to travel freely domestically, without any risk.” Cf. State Report of September 5, 2005. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of June 14, 1998, Considering 6; Case of González Medina and Family. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Court of August 30, 2011, Considering 4, and Matter of the Unidad de Internación Socioeducativa. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of September 1, 2011, Considering 3. 2