iii) The eventual expulsion may only take effect following a reasoned decision in keeping with the law that is duly notified.248 e) Conclusions 176. From the foregoing, it is evident that the expulsion of the nine Haitian migrants was not in line with international standards on the matter or the procedures established in domestic law. The Haitian migrants were not guaranteed any of the minimum guarantees due to them as aliens. Therefore, the Court finds that the Dominican Republic violated the right to due process and to judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Rose-Marie Petit-Homme, Joseph Pierre, Renaud Tima, Selafoi Pierre, Sylvie Felizor, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josier Maxime and Sonide Nora.249 177. Furthermore, the Court notes that the requirements established in both Dominican law and the Protocol of Understanding between Haiti and Dominican Republic, as well as in international law, were not respected during the expulsion of the nine Haitian migrants. This action corroborates the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and the Independent Expert on minority issues concerning the existence of expulsions that are unjustified and violate the rights of Haitian migrants considered illegal by State officials.250 178. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State treated the migrants as a group, without individualizing them or providing them with differential treatment as human beings and taking into consideration their eventual needs for protection. This represents a collective expulsion in violation of Article 22(9) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligation to respect rights established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Rose-Marie Petit-Homme, Joseph Pierre, Renaud Tima, Selafoi Pierre, Sylvie Felizor, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josier Maxime and Sonide Nora. VII-3 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION 179. First, the Court will summarize the arguments of the parties related to the proceedings under the military jurisdiction and the impunity of the facts. Then the Court will proceed to establish general considerations on the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, and subsequently, it will rule on the alleged violation of these rights owing to the proceedings carried out under the Dominican military justice system. A. Arguments 180. The Commission indicated that the military jurisdiction does not have competence to investigate the facts of this case because it should be applied “only when juridical rights in the military jurisdiction are threatened relating to the specific functions of the State’s defense and security, and never to investigate human rights violations.” It also considered that the military court was not impartial or independent in the exercise of its functions owing 248 Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 15, supra, para. 10, and International Law Commission. Expulsion of aliens, supra, Article 26. 249 Supra note 92. 250 Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and the Independent Expert on minorities. Human Rights Council. UN DOC A/HRC/7/19/Add.5 and A/HRC/7/23/Add.3, 18 March 2008, p. 19 and 20 (file of annexes to the merits report, folios 1494 and 1495). 50