Dominicans of Haitian descent usually face discriminatory practices in the offices of the Civil Registry, 138 which prevent them from registering the birth of their children. Suspicions about the authenticity of the documents presented for the registration, disparaging comments and disdainful attitudes are obstacles faced by most Haitian parents, or those who are considered Haitian. 139 166. The difficulties do not end once personal or identity documents have been obtained, but extend to the use of these documents – and this is not a recent problem. In this regard, in 2008, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued its concluding observations on the reports submitted by the Dominican Republic in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 and expressed its concern about the numerous cases of Dominicans of Haitian descent whose birth certificates, identity cards and electoral identity documents had been confiscated and destroyed, or issue of duplicates had been refused owing to their ethnic origin. 140. Similarly, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the independent expert on minority issues stressed that, without exception, the individuals of Haitian descent born in the Dominican Republic who they interviewed during their visit to the Dominican Republic from 23 to 29 October 2007, reported that, because of their color or their Haitian looks or name, it is virtually impossible to obtain identity documents or even copies or renewals of previously issued documents. The Special Rapporteur and the independent expert also underlined that without identity documents verifying their lawful presence in the country they are left vulnerable to deportation or expulsion to Haiti. 141 A.3. The alleged existence of a systematic practice of collective expulsions of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent 167. Although the State indicated that it “did not carry out collective or mass deportations of Haitians,” 142 this Court has previously established that: (a) the Dominican Republic has carried out expulsions of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent irrespective of their migratory status in the country; (b) in the case of these expulsions, decisions were taken without a prior investigation procedure, and (c) in some cases in the 1990s the expulsions 138 First National Survey on Immigrants in the Dominican Republic, p. 19. 139 Amnesty International, A life in transit - The plight of Haitian migrants and Dominicans of Haitian Descent. 140 United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the thirteenth and fourteenth periodic reports of the Dominican Republic, para. 19. 141 United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance Doudou Diène, and the independent expert on minority issues, Gay McDougall, para. 55. 142 The State added that this “was supported […] by official statistics on repatriations,” and that it had “never repatriated a Dominican who had been detained and who, during the verification process, had been able to document his status as a national.” Regarding the said official data, the State did not present official documents with details of the said statistical information, but referred to a brief of July 19, 2000, which the Dominican Republic had presented to the Court in the context of the provisional measures, and which the Commission had included as an annex to the Merits report. In this brief it had referred to a specific period of some months (although it did not specify which months), and indicated that “the statistics for repatriations of illegal Haitians towards their country of origin carried out by the General Directorate of Immigration for June [2000], show an average of 717 persons repatriated each month; repatriations never amounted to 1,000 persons in any of these months” (file of annexes to the Merits report, annex 6, fs. 121 to 154). The State also presented files on expulsion proceedings for both Haitians and individuals from other countries (supra para. 138). In any case, the Court notes that the information provided by the State refers to expulsions recorded and carried out under legal procedures. Other probative elements, as well as aspects established in previous case law of this Court reveal expulsions that, owing to the method used, were not necessarily recorded. Consequently, the information provided by the State does not preclude the Court from taking these other previous probative elements and information into account. 54