7. In the context of provisional measures, the Court may only consider arguments that are directly and strictly related to the extreme gravity, urgency, and the necessity to prevent irreparable damage to persons which gave rise to the adoption of the measures or if equally serious and urgent fresh circumstances warrant they be maintained. This does not constitute a prejudgment in the possible case on merits. Any other matter can only be brought forward by consideration by the Court in the course of the pertaining contentious cases.5 8. In the Court’s Order of February 29, 2012 (supra having seen paragraph 5), it was decided, inter alia, in accordance with the twentieth, twenty-first, and twentyninth considering paragraphs of the Order, to require that the State: 1) continue to implement the necessary and sufficient measures to: a) continue with the periodic meetings of the working group composed of State officials, with the participation of the beneficiaries and/or their representatives, in order to collaborate on the implementation of the measures ordered by the Court, and (b) submit a report with the timetable of the next meetings; and 2) by mutual agreement with the children of Mrs. Solange Pierre, establish the most appropriate mechanism to respond to any eventuality related to their safety and personal integrity. * A) Regarding the implementation of the provisional measures A.1) Regarding the actions tending to coordinate the implementation of the measures 9. In its brief of June 29, 2012, the State indicated that Lieutenant Colonel Alfonso Maria Duvergé Mateo (hereinafter “Colonel Duvergé”) is the authority in charge of acting as liaison between the Dominican State and the beneficiaries of the provisional measures. Afterwards, in its report of July 13, 2012, the State ratified the aforementioned and pointed out that Colonel Duvergé is the Commander of DINTEL of the National Police Force. It indicated that there is no reason whatsoever why the beneficiaries should not trust him. In its report of June 29, 2012, the State also noted, referring to Mrs. Pierre’s children, that “they cannot be granted […] the protection they […] do not wish to receive [… since] multiple work meetings have been held in order to make progress in compliance with the provisional measures in question, but it has been impossible to set a meeting,” for that effect. In its report of July 13, 2012, it pointed out that the creation of a “suitable mechanism” is, without doubt, of a relative nature and will depend on the interests of the parties and the actual possibilities to carry it out. 10. In its brief of June 1, 2012, the representatives expressed their concern for the fact that state agents in uniform (on May 18, 2012) and dressed as civilians (on May 28, 2012) approached the home of the Pierre family without serving prior notice, as well as for the lack of formality shown by the Dominican State. They stated that, on both occasions, said officials only asked for Mrs. Pierre’s sons and that, when they could not find them, they left the name and contact information of Colonel Duvergé. 5 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; and Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, fourth considering paragraph. 4