16.
In its observations of February 17, 2012, the Commission indicated that the State
had expressed “its willingness to grant the remaining safe conducts.” It also noted that
“from the information provided, it is evident that the usefulness or legitimacy of the safe
conducts would be questioned more at the border posts than within the Dominican Republic,
and therefore [it] consider[ed] it crucial that the complementary measures duly agreed by
the parties be implemented.” In addition, it asked the Court to “require the State to issue
safe conducts for the children identified in the attachment to the representatives’ brief.”
A.3) Regarding a working group or team to collaborate in the implementation of the
measures ordered by the Court and the scheduling of work meetings
17.
In its most recent report dated February 1, 2012, the State indicated that, on
January 17, 2012, it had received a communication from the petitioners asking that it
coordinate the resumption of the tasks of the working group, and that it is currently taking
steps, within the State apparatus, to hold a meeting.
18.
In their observations of February 1, 2012, the representatives stated that, ever since
the group was established, there has never been fluid communication and that, despite their
attempts, they had not been able to organize a new meeting with those appointed, and
therefore nothing had changed since the last meeting, which was held in January 2011.
They added that, despite their efforts, they had been unable to communicate with the State
to arrange the next meetings of the working group, because the State had not collaborated.
Consequently, they asked the Court to order the State to set up a new working group to
coordinate and supervise compliance with the provisional measures, provide information on
the new members of the group, and communicate with the representatives to coordinate
the scheduling of the group’s meetings.
19.
In its observations of February 17, 2012, the Commission indicated that “the State
had not presented specific information” on the scheduling of the next working meetings. It
added that “priority should be given to establishing a fluid and constructive communication
to allow for progress in the implementation of the provisional measures and to respond
satisfactorily to the needs of the beneficiaries.”
Considerations of the Court
20.
Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that the State has provided information on
the appointment of State authorities to whom the beneficiaries of the measures may have
recourse in relation to their implementation, as well as on the creation of the working
group; also, it has expressed its willingness to issue the safe conducts to those who do not
yet have them. Although the Commission and the representatives acknowledge that the
State has made those appointments and created the working group, their observations
reveal that they are dissatisfied with the lack of concrete actions on the part of the
aforementioned State authorities due, on the one hand, to the fact that some of those
appointed no longer hold public office and, on the other, that they have had difficulty in
communicating with those authorities and have not received any response from the State to
follow up on the implementation of the measures, particularly with regard to the delivery of
safe conducts, and the coordination to hold meetings in this regard. Accordingly, they
considered that the State has not taken the necessary steps to comply with the measures
ordered by the Court.
21.
In this regard, the Court acknowledges the efforts made by the State to comply with
the instant measures and the willingness shown to move forward with their implementation.
5