49 the obligation to ensure this fundamental principle to its citizens and to any foreigner who is in its territory without any discrimination based on regular or irregular residence, nationality, race, gender 230 or any other cause. 208. On the other hand, although it is true that in the context of the application of migration laws it has been broadly recognized that “States may establish mechanisms to control the entry and exit 231 of undocumented migrants into their territory,” the IACHR recalls that international human rights laws require that migration laws be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. On this point, the Inter-American Court has pointed out: States must abstain from carrying out any action that, in any way, directly or indirectly, is aimed at creating situations of de jure or de facto discrimination. This translates, for example, into the prohibition to enact laws, in the broadest sense, formulate civil, administrative or any other measures, or encourage acts or practices of their officials, in implementation or interpretation of the law that discriminate against a specific group of persons because of their race, gender, color or other reasons. In addition, States are obliged to take affirmative action to reverse or change discriminatory situations that exist in their societies to the detriment of a specific group of persons. This implies the special obligation to protect that the State must exercise with regard to acts and practices of third parties who, with its tolerance or acquiescence, create, maintain or promote discriminatory 232 situations. 209. In this regard, the Commission considers that in the context of the application of migration laws, the fundamental right to equal protection and to non-discrimination obligates the States to ensure that its policies and enforcement of the law are not unjustifiably aimed at certain individuals based on their ethnic or racial features such as color of the skin, accent, ethnicity, or particular area of residence know for having a specific ethnic populating. As previously pointed out, international human rights law not only prohibits deliberately discriminatory policies and practices, but also those whose impact discriminates against a certain category of persons even when the discriminatory intent cannot be proven. 210. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR considers that the use of excessive force by State agents which resulted in the extra-legal executions and injuries to the Haitian victims and the absolute impunity of those responsible for the incidents, as well as the expulsion of Haitian victims from the country without affording them access to judicial guarantees and judicial protection are, themselves, violations of Articles 24 and 1(1) of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 211. Based on the considerations of fact and of law, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the Dominican Republic is responsible for: a) The violation of the right to life and the right to personal integrity enshrined in Articles 4.1 and 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention in connection to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jacqueline Maxime, Fritz Alce (Gemilord), Roselene Theremeus, Ilfaudia Dorzema, Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal, Pardis Fortilus and Nadege Dorzema. 230 IA Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico vs. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, par. 155. Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra note 95, par. 118 231 IA Court H.R., Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, par. 119 (September 17, 2003), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_18_esp.pdf. 232 IA Court H.R., Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, pars.103-104 (September 17, 2003), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_18_esp.pdf.