been described for Dominicans of Haitian descent to obtain identity documents, 109 and (c) the alleged existence of a systematic practice of collective expulsions 110 of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent. 111 The Court will consider the information provided on the background to these practices, and their application during the period over which it is alleged that the facts of this case occurred. A.1. The socio-economic situation of Haitians and those of Haitian descent and the alleged discriminatory concept held of them A.1.1 The socio-economic situations of Haitians and those of Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic 155. The Court has verified previously that the first major migratory flows of Haitians towards the Dominican Republic occurred during the first third of the twentieth century, when around 100,000 people went to work in the Dominican sugar plantations that were initially controlled by private corporations and then most of them passed into the control of the State Sugar Council. Many Haitian migrants went to live permanently in the Dominican Republic, established a family in this country, and now live with their children and grandchildren (second and third generation Dominicans of Haitian descent), who were born and have lived in the Dominican Republic. 112 Regarding the second half of the twentieth century, expert witness Manuel Núñez Asencio stated that “from the 1950s to the 1980s, […] most of the Haitian immigrants [went to the Dominican Republic] to work in agriculture, mainly in the sugar plantations. 113 109 The Commission indicated that “mechanisms to deny documentation to Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent […] have been verified.” The representatives alluded to the “difficulties and obstacles faced by those of Haitian descent born in Dominican territory to obtain documents proving their nationality.” The State, before the Court, referred to laws that regulate birth registration in the Dominican Republic. Regarding “supposed obstacles that [some of the presumed victims have allegedly faced] to register, although belatedly, the births of [those] born in Dominican territory, [… it] recall[ed] that Law No. 659, of July 17, 1944, established the procedure to be following in order to register late declarations.” It also mentioned that “Law No. 182 of November 7, 1980, […] established that Registry Office officials would receive late declarations of the birth of children […] up to 10 years of age, without charge, for one year as of promulgation of the law,” and also indicated “Law No. 13-93 of June 22, 1993, which […] increased the time limit for the immediate registration of births from 60 to 90 days, and granted a grace period of one year for late declarations to all children of less than 15 years of age, without charge.” Lastly, it indicated that “the Executive had promulgated Law No. 218-07 of August 14, 2008, granting an amnesty for late birth declarations, which accorded a grace period for the late registration of children of up to 16 years of age even for a three-year period.” 110 For practical effects, without this implying a ruling on the validity or grounds of the definitions adopted in the domestic and international sphere for terms such as “deportation” or “expulsion,” this Judgment will use the term “expulsion” since this is the word used in Article 22 of the American Convention. In this regard, the Court, in Advisory Opinion OC-21/14 adopted a functional definition according to which it “understands expulsion as any decision, order, procedure or proceeding by or before the competent administrative or judicial organ, irrespective of the name given in national law, related to the obligatory departure of a person from the receiving State, which results in the person abandoning the territory of this State or being transferred beyond its borders. Thus, when referring to expulsion, this also includes what in specific or domestic terms may consist in deportation.” (Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and/or in Need of International Protection. Advisory Opinion OC-21/14 of August 19, 2014. Series A No. 21, para. 269). This definition is also applicable to the expulsion of nationals referred to in Article 22(5) of the Convention. 111 The Commission stated that “situations of mass expulsion or deportation have been verified.” The representatives alleged that, since the beginning of the 1990s, Haitian immigrants and numerous Dominicans of Haitian descent had been victims of collective expulsions and deportations.” The State contested these assertions (infra para. 167). 112 Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005, Series C No. 130, para. 109.1, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012, Series C No. 251, para. 38. 113 Expert witness Manuel Núñez Asencio explained that “[t]his was possible owing to the agreement of November 14, 1966, on the hiring in Haiti and entry into the Dominican Republic of temporary unskilled labor and, prior to this, the bi-national agreement on Haitian temporary unskilled labor of January 5, 1952.” He added 48