5 by their very nature, do not meet the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal applicable to civil proceedings because they are not part of the independent civil justice system but part of the executive branch.” 28. The petitioners allege that, in addition to the lack of independence, impartiality and diligence of proceedings in military tribunals, the judicial proceedings were rushed. The petitioners point out that only one of the victims of the massacre was questioned during the military investigation, a fact that constitutes grave negligence because neither the victims nor the witnesses were allowed to challenge the testimony of the troops, and openly contradicts international standards which demand an immediate, exhaustive, serious and impartial investigation. The petitioners add that there was an absence of judicial independence and impartiality de jure e in concreto, due to the fact that shortly after the facts, the Office of the Secretary of State of the Armed Forces issued a communication stating the institution’s position, indicating that “the military acted in accordance with their duty to be vigilant and protect [the] territory.” 29. On the other hand, the petitioners allege that the persons detained at the Dajabón center were expelled from the national territory by government agents before their legal status was determined through either judicial or administrative proceedings. The petitioners argue that, in accordance with the inter-American system, before beginning any proceedings to expel persons who are under their control, authorities have the obligation to determine the status of those persons providing all due judicial guarantees, something that, they point out, did not happen in the present case. 30. The petitioners maintain that the State violated rights enshrined in Article 24 of the Convention in connection to Article 1(1), given that the facts of the case fall within the general context of discriminatory actions against Haitians or persons of Haitian origins on the part of Dominican agents, specially on the border with Haiti. The petitioners emphasize that, in general, Haitian migration takes place “under extreme conditions, marked by the absence of legal parameters and by discriminatory attitudes.” They argue that to consider any group as inferior violates the notion of equality, as is the case of Haitian nationals in the Dominican Republic who are not allowed to enjoy rights that are guaranteed to other foreign nationals. Based on the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, the petitioners maintain that “the migration status of a person cannot in any way provide justification to deprive that person from enjoying and exercising their human rights.” 31. The petitioners point out that both, the massive expulsion of Haitians without prior judicial guarantees which is the context for the present case, as well as their difficulty in gaining access to the judicial system reflect racial discrimination. In that regard, the petitioners allege that “racial attacks and illegal homicides are rarely investigated and that it is even [rarer] for those responsible to face punishment for their acts.” 32. The petitioners conclude that the Guayubín Massacre is one of many extrajudicial killings and executions of legal or undocumented Haitians in the Dominican Republic, especially near the border, that remain unpunished. Based on the preceding and on reports and the jurisprudence of international organizations, the petitioners argue that the “discriminatory treatment of the victims on June 18, 2000, as well as during the inadequate, ineffective and delayed judicial proceedings,” constitute a violation of the American Convention. 33. With regard to the individual identification of the victims, the petitioners indicate that “some of the victims and their relatives were illegally returned to Haiti by State agents […][which leads to] the victims finding themselves in a defenseless and vulnerable situation that forces them to move frequently. Furthermore, as a result of the earthquake that hit Haiti on January 12, 2010, a number of technical difficulties have developed to locate and communicate with the victims and their families.” In that regard, the petitioners point out that it is “impossible […] to deliver a full and updated list of victims and relatives,” and therefore request that the IACHR take into account the “extraordinary situation,” and to interpret the requirements of the Convention and of its Rules of Procedure in a flexible manner that is adapted to the context, in accordance with the principle of pro homine and with the constant