397. Based on all the above, the Court concludes that, owing to the particular circumstances of this case, the victims did not have real and effective access to the right to appeal, which violated the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to failure to comply with the obligation to respect rights established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Willian Medina Ferreras, Lilia Jean Pierre, Luis Ney Medina, Awilda Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina (deceased), Jeanty Fils-Aimé (deceased), Janise Midi, Diane Fils-Aimé, Antonio Fils-Aimé, Endry FilsAimé, Victor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, Markenson Jean, Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean (deceased), Natalie Jean, Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Bersson Gelin, and also in relation to the rights of the child recognized in Article 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of those previously indicated who were children at the time of the facts. B.2.3. The discriminatory nature of the expulsions (Article 1(1)) 398. As already indicated (supra para. 262), the Court has determined that Article 1(1) of the Convention “is a general norm the content of which extends to all the provisions of the treaty, and establishes the obligation of the States Parties to respect and ensure the full and free exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein without any discrimination.” In other words, whatever the origin or form it takes, any treatment that may be considered discriminatory in relation to the exercise of any of the rights ensured in the Convention is per se incompatible with this instrument. 448 Consequently, the State’s failure to comply, by any discriminatory treatment, with the general obligation to respect and ensure rights gives rise to its international responsibility. 449 This is why the Court has affirmed that there is an indissoluble connection between the obligation to respect and to ensure human rights and the principle of equality and non-discrimination. 450 Article 24 of the Convention recognizes a right that also entails the State obligation to respect and ensure the principle of equality and non-discrimination in order to safeguard other rights and in all the domestic laws that it enacts, 451 because this protects the right to “equal protection of the law,” 452 so that discrimination resulting from an inequality that stems from domestic law or from its application is also prohibited. 453 399. In this case, the representatives and the Commission argued that the deprivations of liberty and the expulsions were based on racial motives; that is to say on discriminatory acts or on a discriminatory practice by State agents (supra paras. 330 and 333). 400. In this regard, the State argued that it had not carried out the deprivation of liberty and subsequent expulsion of the presumed victims (supra paras. 337 to 339). The Court reiterates that it has already established that, at the time of the events there existed in Dominican Republic a context of expulsions, including collective expulsions, of Haitians 448 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. OC-4/84, para. 53, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, para. 204. 449 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. OC-18/03, para. 85, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, para. 204. 450 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. OC-18/03, para. 53, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, para. 204. 451 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, para. 186, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, para. 199. 452 Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, para. 54, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, para. 199. 453 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 209, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, para. 199. 127