218. The Court will now set out the arguments regarding equality before the law and nondiscrimination, as well as with regard to the supposed violation of juridical personality, to determine whether Articles 1(1), 3, and 24 of the American Convention have been violated in this case. A. Arguments 219. The Commission argued that, when the events took place, there was a context of racism, discrimination and “anti-Haitian practices” in Dominican Republic. The Commission considered that “the excessive use of force by State agents that resulted in the extrajudicial executions and the injuries of the Haitian victims, the complete impunity in which the facts remain, and the expulsion from the country of the victims without providing access to judicial guarantees and judicial protection are inherently contrary to Articles 24 and 1(1) of the American Convention.” The Commission argued that the State had violated the personal integrity of the survivors owing to the failure to return the remains of the deceased to their next of kin, which caused them additional suffering and anguish. Moreover, this right was violated by the fear felt by the survivors as a result of the pursuit and gunfire and having been obliged to carry the bodies of the dead and seriously wounded and, also, because they were detained by State agents without knowing their fate, taken to two detention centers without being informed of their rights, threatened with forced labor, and not provided with judicial guarantees. 220. The representatives endorsed the Commission's arguments that what took place occurred in a generalized context of structural discrimination engrained in the Dominican Republic, since the massacre was the result of a climate of racism towards the Haitian immigrants tolerated by the State. 221. They added that, in general, the victims were subjected to acts of violence and marginalization by State agents at different moments: (i) during the pursuit and extrajudicial executions by the soldiers; (ii) during the procedure of deporting the survivors, the expulsion was carried out summarily and in group, without offering the survivors the opportunity to present arguments in their favor, so that there was no individualization since they were Haitian nationals; (iii) in the treatment of the deceased victims, because their bodies were buried in a mass grave, with the exception of the Dominican national, whose body was returned to his next of kin according to the representatives; they therefore concluded that the “only evident reason for the conduct of the Dominican authorities was discrimination and xenophobia to the detriment of the Haitians,” because the soldiers based their actions on the “color of the black skin” to conclude that they were “illegal immigrants,” as emphasized in numerous documents provided by the State itself; (iv) the Supreme Court rejected the request to transfer jurisdiction from the military to the ordinary jurisdiction to try those responsible, when there is evidence that, in at least one similar case, a Dominican victim obtained a decision from the Supreme Court to forward his case from the military to the civil courts,279 and (v) in the investigation and even the acquittal of those who were responsible. 222. Based on the same reasoning, the representatives argued the violation of the right to juridical personality, recognized in Article 3 of the American Convention, because “undoubtedly, the Dominican State has absolutely failed to recognize their possibility of being entitled to fundamental rights and duties.” The representatives concluded that all these circumstances took place “without any formality. They had no name, or even a number. For the Dominican authorities these victims should not have existed.” 279 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 4, issued on December 26, 2001 (Case of Tyson-Morenito) is the precedent to the act of transferring a case from the military to the civil courts (merits file, folio 988, and file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome V, folios 2784 to 2788). 59