Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos Cour Interamericaine des Droits de l'Homme Côrte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos Inter-American Court on Human Rights

traducción al español

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

Decision of the President of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights of September 14, 2000

Precautionary Measures Relating to the Dominican Republic 

Case of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the the Dominican Republic

OBSERVATIONS:

1. On May 30, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or the "Inter-American Commission) presented a brief with attachments before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Court" or the "Inter-American Court"), in accordance with article 63.2 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or the "Inter-American Convention") and article 25 of the Regulations of the Court requesting precautionary measures in favor of Haitian and Dominican persons of Haitian origin that find themselves under the jurisdiction of the Dominican Republic (hereinafter the "State" or the "Dominican Republic") who run the risk of being "expelled" or "deported" collectively (hereinafter "the alleged victims"), all in reference to case #12.271 currently before the Commission.
   
   
2. The Commission noted the following facts in said brief:
   
   
   1. On November 12, 1999, the Commission received a petition in regards to the "massive expulsions" of the alleged victims performed by the State earlier that month.  Ten days later, on November 22, 1999, the Commission issued precautionary measures asking the Dominican Republic to refrain from conducting such "massive expulsions" and noting that should it proceed with such activity, it should do so in accordance with due process norms;
      
      
   2. On December 7, 1999, the State rejected this cautionary action while noting the legal proceedings pertaining to "repatriations" implemented by the General Office of Migration.  The State noted its developments on a new project on Migration Law and made reference to conversations held with representatives of the Haitian government.  The State also affirmed that they were not pursuing "collective repatriations" in the Dominican Republic;
      
      
   3. The rate of "deportations" declined after November 1999.  Yet, the petitioners reiterated their request on March 10 and again on May 5, 2000 claiming that on average, 2,000 deportations per month had ensued since November 1999 and that in April 2000 there had actually been an increase in the "deportation" rate;
      
      
   4. The "expulsions" are conducted en masse and are absent of any legal proceedings that would allow for the proper identification of the nationality of those "expelled" such as an examination of their migratory status and family ties. Basically, they are removed from their homes, without any prior notice and without any opportunity to collect their personal belongings.  Migration officials select those to be deported on the basis of their skin tone;
      
      
   5. The petitioners consider that over 2,000 individuals were "expelled or deported" in November 1999.  The Dominican authorities use excessive force, such as sexual abuse of women, to assure that the alleged victims obey their orders.  Children thus suffer psycholo 'cally, fean'ng leaving their homes; the women partners of those "deported" are left to subsist without any resources;
      
      
   6. On December 3, 1999, the governments of Haiti and the Dominican Republic entered into an agreement in which the Dominican Republic agreed to notify the Haitian authorities regarding any act of deportation of a native Haitian.  According to the petitioners, the Dominican Republic has not satisfied its obligation under this agreement; and
      
      
   7. The practice of "deportations" and "expulsions" affects two groups: both those Haitian laborers documented to work in the Dominican Republic and those not documented to do so, as well as Dominicans of Haitian origin that legally and illegally reside in Dominican soil;

Based on the above, the Commission asked the Court to

[...] adopt precautionary measures such that the State...suspends the massive expulsions­deportations that Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin are being subjected to by the Dominican authorities, in cases wherein such activity endangers the life and the physical integrity of those deported as well as their family members left behind, particularly those minors that result abandoned[;]

[...] adopt precautionary measures calling for the State to establish proceedings to verify the cases in which the deportafion does not go forth as well as in those cases in which it does.  In the event that the expulsion or deportation of individuals in Dominican territory occurs, such must completely satisfy the requirements of due process, including a minimum advance notificafion, access to family, adequate hearings and the adoption of legal decisions from the competent authorities.  In any case, the deportafions must not be conducted en masse but rather in consideration of the particular individual in question.

3. On June 13, 2000, the Commission submitted an Addendum to its original request for precautionary measures (supra 1) informing that it had included, within such, certain victims who had consented to be named as part of the petition.  The Commission described the particulars of Benito Tide Méndez, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Antonio Sension, Janty Fils-Aime, Berson Gelim, William Medina Ferreras¹ and Andrea Alezy as well as of some of their relatives.  The Commission solicited the Court to adopt the necessary measures to

[p]ermit the immediate return of those noted above who currently find themselves in Haiti²;

[p]rotect those above-named who find themselves in the Dominican Republic from all detention action or deportation based on race or nationality or suspicion of not being citizens³;

[p]ermtit all those named [supra]  to establish contact with their family, especially with their children who are minors, and to set standards on the food rations, health and education of those people as soon as possible [;]

[...] demand that the Dominican goveniment establish adequate procedures regarding the detention and the means of deportation of deportable foreigners, including a provision for hearings to exhibit the right to communicate with their relatives and employers to arrange for the payment of wages and the protection of their private property and other personal matters.

4. By means of the decision of the Court of June 16, 2000, the State and the Commission were called to attend a public hearing held on August 8, 2000 at 10am with the purpose of this meeting being for the Court to hear the opposing views on the merits and the circumstances that have provoked the request for precautionary measures.
   
   
5. Within the Commission's brief of July 21, 2000, those to represent it in the public hearing were noted (supra 4), offering Mrs. Solange Pierre and Father Pedro Ruquoy as "experts".  The Commission also sought the Court's consent to present a video capturing the testimony of the alleged victims.
   
   
6. In its correspondence of July 25, 2000, the Commission expressed its desire to present expert witnesses and stressed to the Court the importance of incorporating such into the process.
   
   
7. The State's correspondence of August 1, 2000 noted those who would represent it in the public hearing and also noted the State's objection to the Commission's offering to present expert witnesses and evidence.
   
   
8. The response of the Commission of August 4, 2000 reiterated the importance of including the testimony of the two experts it offered to present at the public hearing.
   
   
9. In its pronouncement of August 7, 2000, the Court considered

1. that the Commission has noted to this Tribunal that Father Pedro Ruquoy and Mrs. Solange Pie[rre] would render an opinion on the state of the alleged victims and of the alleged practice of "expulsions" and their consequences, with the objective of presenting the context in which this request has been submitted [;]
   
   

2. that the nature of the statements of Father Pedro Ruquoy and Mrs. Solange Pie[rre] does not call for the use of either technical or specialized terms that would call for this Tribunal to seek expert witnesses [;]
   

3. that Article 44. 1 of the Regulations of the Court states that the Court can, however, "seek the use of all evidence it deems to be helpful".  Specifically, it can hear the testimony, statement or opinion of a witness, expert witness and others if such is deemed pertinent"[;]
   
   
4. that according to the declarations of the State and the Commission, both Father Pedro Ruquoy and Mrs. Solange Pie[rre] have worked with the allegrd victims and directly witnessed the conditions in which they live, hence why this Tribunal has allowed for the presence of these individuals in order to hear their statements as witnesses, and
   
   
5. that the fact that a person has a direct interest in the outcome of the process or has participated as a petitioner in the process before the Commission does not constitute an impediment such that this person could not declare before this Court, who actually has in its practice made use of the testimony of victims and their relatives. (IACHR, Loayza Tamayo Case.  Sentence of September 17, 1997.  Series C No. 33; IACHR, Castillo Páez Case.  Sentence of November 3, 1997.  Series C No. 34; IACHR, Suárez Rosero Case.  Sentence of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35; IACHR, Blake Case.  Sentence of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36; IACHR, Paniagua Morales et al Case.  Sentence of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37; IACHR, Villagrán Morales et al Case.  Sentence of November 19, 1999.  Series C No. 63)⁴[;]

and decided

1. to summon Father Pedro Ruquoy to appear before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights at 10:00 am on August 8, 2000 to offer his testimony on the alleged practice of the "expulsions and deportations" of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin residing in the Dominican Republic [;]
   
   
2. to summon Mrs. Solange Pie[rre] to appear before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights at 10:00 am on August 8, 2000 to offer her testimony on the alleged practice of the "expulsions and deportafions" of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin residing in the Dominican Republic [,]
   
   
3. to ask the Dominican Republic to ease entry into and exit from its territory to Father Pedro Ruquoy and Mrs. Solange Pie[rre], both called to offer testimony before the Inter­American Court on Human Rights in reference to the request for precautionary measures and [; and]
   
   
4. to establish that this summons is conducted in accordance with Article 45 of the Regulations of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights and as such expenses incurred in the process of the presenting evidence is the responsibility of the party presenting such information.

10. The public hearing on the matter at hand was held on August 8, 2000 with the presence of the following

Representing the Dominican Republic:

• Servio Tulto Castaños, representative;
• Danilo Diaz, alternate representative;
• Flavio Darío Espinal, assistant;
• Rhadys Abreu de Polanco, assistant;
• Wenceslao Guerrero-Pou, assistant;
• Teresita Torres García, assistant;
• Claudia Blonda, assistant and
• Oscar Iván Peña, assistant.

Representing the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:

• Juan Méndez, delegate;
• Bertha Santoscoy, lawyer;
• Roxanna Altholz, advisor;
• Katie Fleet, advisor;
• Cathie Powell, advisor;
• Arturo Carrillo, advisor and
• Luguely Cunillera, advisor.

Witnesses presented by the Inter-American Commission:

• Father Pedro Ruquoy, and
• Solange Pierre

11. The allegations of the Commission presented in the public hearing are noted as follows:

1. The Commission recognizes that the Individual State determines its immigration policies, though, within limits.  In accordance with the American Convention, these policies may not infringe upon the rights of nationals to exit and enter the country nor to settle anywhere within.  This immigration policy must grant those legal foreigners the legal right to not be deported without a decision firmly supported by the law, and it must prohibit the collective expulsion of foreigners, irrespective of their legal status.  Likewise, the immigration policy must guarantee to all an individual decision with the guarantees of due process; it must respect the right to life, physical and mental integrity, family, and the right of children to obtain special means of protection.  Finally, the execution of this immigration policy cannot give rise to cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment nor discrimination based on race, color, religion or sex;
   
   

2. The Commission pronounced provisionary measures on November 21, 1999 and to present date, there has been no change in the practice of the Dominican authorities in the deportation and expulsion of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin.  This practice, performed in an arbitrary and abrupt fashion without any guarantees, continues to be directed against individuals whose skin color is "black".  Because of their skin color, they are suspected of being Haitian, and for that they are presumed to be illegal and as such are expelled.  This practice is detrimental to those Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin who as a consequence live in constant fear of deportation;

3. The present request is made on behalf of a particular group, though unnamed, as the practice of the State does not allow there to be a distinction among individual members of the group.  These individuals do not present themselves on an individual basis as a result of the fear that they maintain and that the inter-American system on human rights would not be capable of processing the petitions of all these individuals;
   
   
4. Neither the wording nor the spirit of Article 63.2 of the American Convention impede or restrict irreparable damage as being solely that made unto life, integrity or to any other right.  There thus exists the need to recognize that other rights conferred in the Convention are subject to the protection that to this point has been granted to life and personal integrity;
   
   
5. The witnesses who participated in the public hearing before the Court have justified fears, and the interrogation of the State in said hearing did not allow for such fears to be alleviated; and
   
   
6. The Commission maintains prepared to pursue constructive talks with the Dominican authorities with the goal of reaching a permanent solution.

12. The allegations of the State presented in the same public hearing are summarized as follows:
    
    
    1. In the Dominican Republic there exists a procedure for deportations that guarantees due process and the individual treatment of the deportation cases.  The State has taken very seriously the repatriations of Haitian citizens that find themselves illegally in its territory, hence why it has made great efforts, in conjunction with the Haitian government, to continuously improve the repatriation methods while protecting the individual's rights.  Likewise, the State recognizes that any mechanism or procedure can be improved upon;
       
       
    2. On several occasions, the migration authorities have publicly invited non­governmental organizations of the Dominican Republic to observe the different stages of the deportation process, though this invitation has been received with much skepticism by such organizations;
       
       
    3. The Dominican Republic is responsible for maintaining a permanent policy on expulsions and return.  Yet, it is crucial to note that the number of those repatriated pales in comparison to the number of those who enter the country illegally. Accepting the present request for precautionary measures would serve to bind a State who over the past four years has struggled to advance its stance on human rights and its migration problem;
       
       
    4. The problem of Haiti is a problem of the international community, particularly of the more prosperous nations.  The Dominican Republic has severe economic limitations and cannot on its own carry the burden of the economic, social, environmental, political, institutional and safety realities which the Haitian people are enduring; and
       
       
    5. It is necessary to identify the people on whose behalf the precautionary measures have been solicited.  However, the Dominican Republic is in the best position to investigate any individual case in which it is the violation of rights is alleged, with the purpose of correcting any abuse that may have occurred and in taking measures to improve the repatriation mechanisms.
       
       
13. The statements rendered by tfie witnesses during the public hearing are summarized as follows:
    
    
    1. Testimony of Father Pedro Ruquoy, Catholic priest, member of the religious missionary community in the Dominican Republic.
       
       Made a statement on the forced repatriation process in the Dominican Republic.  Said process occurs very quickly.  In the majority of cases, the persons are directed to the border on bus without any opportunity to speak with their relatives, without any prior notification, without their belongings and without the opportunity to present themselves before a competent authority to present details on their case regarding their status in the country.  The criteria used to select those that will be expelled are that of their skin color and their way of speaking.  Also, some of those who are expelled are Dominicans in possession of an identification card, but yet they are told that such identification cards are false.  The alleged victims live in constant fear.  Sometimes, the repatriations are conducted in the evenings and those being repatriated, including women, are subject to abuse.  On one occasion, he reported in writing these occurrences to the President of the Dominican Republic, yet he received no response.  He indicated that living along the border, an average of 12 expelled persons visit his home on a daily basis seeking to return to their homes.  Finally, he mentioned that though he understands and supports that each country has the right to repatriate those who are in their territory illegally, he does not agree with the manner in which the Dominican Republic treating those individuals at the time of the repatriation.
       
       

    2. Testimony of Mrs. Solange Pierre, social worker, Director of the Dominican and Haitian Women's Movement.

       Offered a statement on the process of forced repatriations in the Dominican Republic.  The armed military violently enter the homes of those to be repatriated and take them directly to Haiti.  Said expulsions separate families, cause traumas and grave consequences among the populace in general, above all, among women and children.  Also, many of those expelled have lived 20-30 years in the Dominican Republic and have lost all ties to Haiti; many do not even speak the language and do not have any cultural ties to Haiti and thus find themselves in a completely foreign land when returning to Haiti.  There exist cases of sexual abuse amidst the expulsions.  She works with approximately seven communities or "bateyes", communities that lack light, water and basis amenities.  She stated that the expulsions are conducted without any prior notice.  She noted that there are legislators and government officials who have sought, via the media, that she be detained, investigated and expelled, thus frightening her children and family.  Finally, she added that the practice of expulsions continues to persist.
       

14. The brief submitted by the Dominican Republic upon completion of the public hearing before the Court, including its Attachments, noted that
    
    
    1. the Commission acted rashly in requesting precautionary measures by not waiting for the State to respond nor did it make use of the means and mechanisms available to prove the claims of the petitioners;
       
       
    2. the deportation of the foreigners illegally in Dominican territory is an "irrevocable and non-negotiable right of the Dominican State and a fundamental principle establishing its sovereignty", granted to it judicially, and which does not violate any agreement or convention that the State may have signed or ratified;
       
       
    3. in the Dominican Republic, there exist procedures for conducting deportations that guarantee due process and the treatment of individuals in deportation cases.  Such a proceeding consists of three stages: detention and identification, investigation and purification and, finally, verification and confirmation;
       
       
    4. before deporting someone, the competent authorities accurately establish the identity and the judicial status within the State of that person in order to distinguish between those who are to be deported and those who are not.  Those who are demarcated for deportation are subject to a final verification prior to being presented to the Haitian authorities, a stage in which Haitian consulates participate;
       
       

    5. the Dominican Republic has made efforts to establish mechanisms for the repatriation of Haitians while in observance of the protection of their rights; over the past two years, this has resulted in the deepening of the collaborative relationship between the Dominican and Haitian governments as noted in the entry of various agreements on this matter; 

    6. it is not true that "the life and personal integrity of numerous individuals" is at risk in the Dominican Republic;

    7. the number of those repatriated monthly must be analyzed in the context of the massive immigration of Haitian citizens in the Dominican territory; yet, even as such, the statistics of the General Office of Migration point out that in no month have repatriations reached 1,000 persons;

    8. the Dominican Republic has serious difficulties in absorbing an indefinite and constant number of refugees in light of its own limitations, though this is an issue which must be addressed in a global forum;

    9. the identity of those who are facing the risk of suffering from irreparable harm must be revealed in order to adopt precautionary measures; measures taken in reference to those unnamed will only inhibit the State from exercising its rights to protect its border and to control the legal status of those who enter its territory or live within it; and

    10. as for those mentioned in the Commission's Addendum of June 13, 2000 (supra 3), two of them, Rafaelito Pérez Charles neither lives in nor has lived in the neighborhood noted by the Commission⁵ in the past 51 years, and Berson Gelim does not appear on the Dominican Republic's roster of those to be deported.

Finally, the State made reference to the particular situation of those noted in the Commission's Addendum and asked the Court to deny the request for precautionary measures in that matter.  It expressed its "interest in correcting and applying the law to those found to be responsible for any abuse or incognizance of rights to the detriment of a foreigner."

15. The correspondence of the Commission dated August 11, 2000 in which it
    
    
    1. objected to the State's brief offered at the conclusion of the public hearing (supra 14);
       
       
    2. in response to a question posed by the President of the Court during the public hearing, indicated that its request for precautionary measures was an act of acción popular (actio popularis); and
       
       
    3. also solicited precautionary measures on behalf of the two witnesses who offered their testimony in the public hearing.
       
       
16. The Decision of the Court of August 18, 2000 in which it resolved to

1. To order the State to adopt, without delay, whatever measures are necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of Benito Tide Méndez, Antonio Sension, Andrea Alezy, Janty Fils-Aime and William Medina Ferreras.
   
   

2. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to provide a detailed report on the current state of Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Berson Gelim in light of the differing perspectives presented by the State and the Commission on these people, at the earliest possible opportunity and no later than August 31, 2000.

3. To order the State to abstain from deporting or expelling from its territory both Benito Tide Méndez and Antonio Sension.

4. To order the State to permit the immediate return to the Dominican Republic of Janty Fils-Aime and William Medina Ferreras.

5. To order the State to permit, without delay, the reunion of Antonio Sension and Andrea Alezy and their minor children in the Dominican Republic.

6. To order the State to collaborate with Antonio Sension in gathering information on the whereabouts of his relatives in Haiti or the Dominican Republic.

7. To order the State to work within the framework of existing agreements between itself and Haiti and under the guidance of the Commission to investigate the condition of Janty Fils-Aime and William Medina Ferreras.  Working with the Commission should serve to ensure that the investigation is expedited.

8. To order the State to continue following-up on the investigations already in process by the relevant authorities in reference to Benito Tide Méndez, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Antonio Sension, Andrea Alezy and Berson Gelim.

9. To order the State to adopt, without any delay, whatever measures may be necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of Father Pedro Ruquoy and Mrs. Solange Pierre, witnesses in the public hearing of August 8, 2000.

10. To order the State and the Commission to submit to the Court detailed information on the state of the members of the communities or "bateyes" along the border that may be subject to forced repatriations, deportations or expulsions.

11. To order the State to inform the Court every other month of precautionary measures that it has adopted and is thus in compliance with, commencing from the point of receipt of this notification.
    
12. To order the Commission to present its observations on the reports of the State within six weeks of receipt of those reports.

17. The Commission's brief of August 31 in which it informed the Court on the current state of Rafaelito Pérez Charles and of Berson Gelim:
    
    
    1. Rafaelito Pérez Charles
       The Commission assured that he was bom and raised in the Batey Community #7, Neyba, Dominican Republic; that he was forcefully deported once without the opportunity to demonstrate his Dominican nationality; and that he currently does not reside in the Batey Community #7 as he both fears that he may be deported again and that his life may be at risk being that he has brought a case before the Commission.  The Commission expressed that the alleged government officials that visited the noted Community were notified that Rafaelito Pérez Charles was bom, raised and lived until recently in Batey #7.  The Commission also expressed that the Government bases its allegations regarding Rafaelito Pérez Charles on the purported statement of Mr. Adolfo Encarnación, who actually denies that assertion of the State.  The Commission attached copies of the sworn statements the mother of Rafaelito Pérez Charles - Mrs. Maris Esthel Medina Matos, the First Mayor of the Batey Community #7 - Mr. Eristen González González, and of the Deputy Mayors of Batey Community #7 ­- Mssrs.  Adolfo Encarnación and Saint Foir José Louis.
       
       
    2. Berson Gelim
       The Commission reiterates that the Dominican authorities do not exert adequate control over the "deportations and arbitrary expulsions" that occur, reason why Berson Gelim, among other "victims of this policy", does not appear to be re 'stered in official immigration records.  For the purpose of updating the petition for precautionary measures, the Commission attached two statements personally signed by Mr. Gelim, the most recent being that of June 26, 2000, as evidence that "Berson Gelim was arbitrarily expelled from the Dominican Republic".
       
       Finally, the Commission implored the Court to "immediately adopt the following provisional measures":
       
       
       1. Order ... the Dominican Republic to abstain from deporting or expelling Rafaelito Pérez Charles from its territory;
          
          
       2. Order ... the Dominican Republic to permit the immediate return to its territory of Berson Gelim, and that it permit him to reunite with his son whom he has not seen since his expulsion;
          
          
       3. Request the State to adopt the measures necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Berson Gelim; and
          
          
       4. Request the State to adopt whatever measures may be necessary for Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Berson Gelim and other individual victims to present their complaints and statements in national and international venues free of any pressures and retaliation.
          
          
18. The correspondence of the Secretariat of the Court dated September 1, 2000, requested the Dominican Republic, per the President's order, to remit its observations on the brief of the Commission of August 31, 2000 no later than by September 12, 2000.  The State did not submit any observations within that timeframe.

CONSIDERING:

1. That the Dominican Republic is a State Party to the American Convention since April 19, 1978 and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, per Article 62 of the Convention, on March 25, 1999;
   
   
2. That Article 63.2 of the Convention stipulates that

in cases of "extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons", the Court shall adopt such precautionary measures as it deems pertinent, even with respect to cases not yet submitted to the Court, as it may act at the request of the Commission;

3. That in terms of Article 25.1 and 25.4 of the Regulations of the Court

at any stage of the proceedings, so long as the case is one of extreme gravity and urgency and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court, on its own initiative or by request, shall adopt precautionary measures that it deems pertinent per Article 63.2 of the Convention;

[...]

if the Court were not convened, the president, after consultation with the permanent commission, and if possible, with the other justices, will require the respective government to enact the pressing measures necessary to secure the efficiency of the precautionary measures that the Court can address later in its next session.

4. That the information presented by the Commission both in its request and reports on the current state of Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Berson Gelim demonstrate prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency as it relates to the rights to life, personal integrity, movement and residence of said persons, as well as the right to special protection of the children in the family, in the case of Berson Gelim.⁶  The prima facie evaluation standards of a case and the application of presumptions have driven this Court to order precautionary measures on various occassions.⁷
   
   
5. That Article 1.1 of the Convention stipulates the obligation of State Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms.
   
   
6. That it is the responsibility of the Dominican Republic to make sovereign decisions on its migration policies, such which must be in compliance with the norms of protection of human rights as set forth in the American Convention;
   
   
7. That the case in reference in the Commission's petition is not being reviewed by the Court based on its merits and, as such, the adoption of emergency measures does not imply a verdict on the merits of the existing controversy between the petitioners and the State.  By adopting emergency measures, this Presidency solely guarantees that the Court can loyally exercise conventional mandate.⁸

AS SUCH:

THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS,

Based on Article 63.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights and making use of the powers conferred upon him per Article 25.4 of the Regulations, and after consulting with all the judges of the Court,

RESOLVES:

1. To order the Dominican Republic to adopt, without any delay, whatever measures may be necessary to protect the life and personal and integrity of Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Berson Gelim such that the precautionary measures that the Court may order may have the desired effects.
   
   
2. To order the State to abstain from deporting or expelling Rafaelito Pérez Charles from its territory.
   
   
3. To order the State to permit the immediate return to its territory of Berson Gelim so as to make possible the reunion between himself and his son.
   
   
4. To order the State to include a report on the measures it may have adopted in compliance with the present Decision in its first report on the precautionary measures which was ordered by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights on August 18, 2000.  Such information will then be conveyed to the Tribunal in its next session.
   
   
5. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on the report of the Dominican Republic within six weeks of receipt of those reports.

Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
President

Manuel E. Ventura Robles
Secretary

Communicate and Execute,

Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
President

Manuel E. Ventura Robles
Secretary