B) Considerations of the Court 343. In this chapter the Court is examining together the alleged violations of the rights to personal liberty, 374 freedom of movement and residence, 375 judicial guarantees, 376 and judicial protection, 377 in relation to the rights of the child, and the obligation to respect rights without discrimination, owing to the concurrence of the facts that could have given rise to these violations. 344. But first, bearing in mind the characteristics of this case, the Court underlines that ten of the presumed victims who were deprived of liberty and then expelled were children at the time of the events, namely: Luis Ney Medina, Awilda Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Antonio Fils-Aimé, Endry Fils-Aimé, Diane Fils-Aimé, Markenson Jean, Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean and Natalie Jean. In this regard, the facts of the case do not reveal that the State took special measures of protection in favor of the children concerned based on the principle of the best interests of the child. The said children were treated the same as the adults during the deprivation of liberty and subsequent expulsion, without any consideration for their special condition. 345. In addition, with regard to the presumed victims Bersson Gelin, Jeanty Fils-Aimé, Nené Fils-Aimé, Diane Fils-Aimé, Antonio Fils-Aimé and Endry Fils-Aimé, the Court is unable to determine with certainty where they were born (supra para. 86), so that, in their case, it is unable to examine the alleged violation of any of the paragraphs of Article 22 of the Convention. Nevertheless, with the exception of Nené Fils-Aimé, the Court has already established that these presumed victims were effectively deprived of their liberty and expelled from Dominican territory to Haiti, so that it will examine the presumed violation of Articles 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention, with regard to them. In the case of Nené Fils-Aimé, insufficient factual evidence has been provided to analyze the presumed violation of these articles to his detriment. Fils-Aimé, Endry Fils-Aimé, Bersson Gelin, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Victor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, Markenson Jean, Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean and Natalie Jean, as appropriate. 374 Article 7 stipulates: “1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.” 375 The pertinent part of Article 22 of the Convention establishes: “1. Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law. […] 5. No one can be expelled from the territory of the state of which he is a national or be deprived of the right to enter it. 9. The collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.” 376 Article 8(1) of the Convention indicates: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 377 Article 25(1) of this instrument establishes: “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 111