7 unconstitutional” and that it lacked “further information on the issue or [on] other initiatives aimed at effectively taking over the supervision of the fulfillment of the adopted measures”. In this respect, it stated that active and direct participation of the beneficiaries is indispensable when planning and implementing the measures intended to protect them; j) the argument of the State that lack of communication with the beneficiaries precludes full compliance with the adopted measures is unfounded, since most of the measures can be implemented without direct communication between the State and the beneficiaries. It pointed out, according to the information provided by the representatives, that Messrs. William Medina-Ferreras, Jeanty Fils-Aimé, Berson Gelin and, in particular, Rafaelito Pérez-Charles and Benito Tide Méndez, are unwilling to maintain a direct relationship with state officials by reason of the ill-treatment they received at the hands of state agents, and that the beneficiaries had stated that “they [would] not appear before Dominican authorities unless there first existed such conditions and guarantees as necessary to fully safeguard their rights to life, personal integrity and safety, liberty and dignity, as well as their right not to be expelled until the main case is decided”; k) it is important for the State to continue overseeing the full effectiveness and efficacy of the safe-conducts, which are the only means to assure the beneficiaries that they will not be expelled from the Dominican Republic; l) the State “keeps failing to submit information about the reports on the implementation of the provisional measures”, and m) it is awaiting the information that the State “pledged” to provide regarding the situation of members of bordering communities or bateyes who may be the target of forced repatriations, deportations or expulsions. It noted “that the State has launched some projects in the health sector [at the bateyes] which seem to be positive initiatives”. Nonetheless, “it reiterat[ed] the need for the State to provide the […] Court with detailed and specific information related to ‘the situation of members of bordering communities or bateyes who may be the target of forced repatriations, deportations or expulsions’, pursuant to the Court’s order”. 6. The briefs of the representatives forwarded on April 20, June 30, September 23 and November 30, 2004; February 24, June 10, August 3, September 15 and 26, 2005, wherein they expressed, inter alia, that: a) “the situation of risk and urgency as regards the beneficiaries of the measures prevails”; b) the State “[has] not furnish[ed] detailed information on the degree of compliance with each of the provisional measures ordered by [the Court,] nor on the situation of all the protected persons”; c) the migratory status of the beneficiaries bears no relationship to the implementation of the provisional measures ordered by the Court; therefore, the State's comments that beneficiaries have not taken the necessary steps to clarify and regularize their migratory condition do not apply in respect of said