to the Court a list with the names of the people whose safe-conducts were not renewed,8 as well as the names of new family members that need one.9 Regarding the latter, the representatives indicated that they were in “the same situation of insecurity that led to the granting of provisional measures for their parents” and that due to their status as minors, “they require special protection from the State[. For this reason] they requested that the provisional measures be extended [by issuing safe-conducts to] the new family members until the situation leading to this complaint is resolved,” with the purpose of guaranteeing that they can freely go about their daily business without fear of being deported. 13. The representatives also stated that the beneficiaries are subjected to “episodes of violence” at the hands of the authorities due to lack of knowledge regarding the validity of their safe-conducts. The representatives attributed these incidents to the State’s failure to adopt the measures agreed on at the first meeting of the work team implementing the measures ordered by this Court. The measures ordered are as follows: “a) [d]eliver to the families a copy of the official Order that creates the documents so they may show it to the authorities when they suffer similar situations; b) [f]orward an official letter to all police authorities and armed forces with a copy of the order (with the names of the beneficiaries) and instruct said officials to respect the validity of the documents; c) [p]lace a copy of the order on the walls of the offices that operate on the border so that it may be visible to all, and d) [p]rovide them with the telephone number of a state office where they may denounce this type of episode.” Likewise, they indicated that these measures are necessary to guarantee the effectiveness of the safe-conducts. 14. In its brief of comments dated March 18, 2011, the Commission stated its concern at the failure to deliver all the safe-conducts, highlighting the importance of completing it and the need to adopt complementary measures to guarantee the effectiveness of the documents. Additionally, in its comments dated October 20, 2011, it warned that the State has not yet provided information in this regard. In addition, with regard to the representatives’ request to “expand the granting of safe-conducts to the new family members,” the Commission argued that “risk factors have been identified that justify their acknowledgment as beneficiaries.” Based on this and “by virtue of the principle of protection of the family and the special measures that must be adopted in order to protect the best interest of children,” the Commission asked the Court to order the State to issue safeconducts to new family members. 15. The Court notes that the State reported that it appointed an authority to which the beneficiaries and/or their representatives may turn for issues related to the implementation of these measures. However, the representatives stated they had not been able to establish communication with that person after the meeting of March 4, 2010, and they do not know who now holds that position. Based on this, this Tribunal asks the State to provide the following information in its next report: a) the person in charge of this measure and the person’s contact information, and b) the duties and actions for which this person is responsible with regard to this measure. 16. Likewise, the Tribunal points out that on April 7 and 10, 2010, the State granted and renewed the safe-conducts for the beneficiaries of the present provisional measures.10 In 8 Of the relatives who are residents of Haiti, Carolina Medina Ferreras, Nene Fils-Aime and William Gelim. Of the relatives residing in the Dominican Republic, Reyita Antonia Sensión. 9 From the Gelim family, Gili Sainlis, Jamson Gelim, Faica Gelim and Kenson Gelim. From the Sensión family, Analideire Sensión and Emiliano Mache Sensión. 10 Namely, the State granted and renewed safe conducts for beneficiaries Antonio Sension, William Medina 5