case. During the merits stage, the presumed victims were represented by CEJIL, the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia University School of Law (hereinafter also “the Human Rights Clinic” or “Columbia University”), the Repatriates and Refugees Support Group (hereinafter also “GARR”), and the Movement of Dominican-Haitian Women (hereinafter “MUDHA”). b) Admissibility report. On October 13, 2005, the Commission approved Admissibility report No. 68/05 (hereinafter “the Admissibility report”). 2 c) Merits report. On March 29, 2012, the Commission issued Merits report No. 64/12, under Article 50 of the American Convention (hereinafter “the Merits report”). i) Conclusions. The Commission concluded that the Dominican Republic was responsible for the violation of: The rights to juridical personality, personal integrity, personal liberty, judicial guarantees, protection of the family, rights of the child, nationality, property, freedom of movement and residence, equality and nondiscrimination, and judicial protection, recognized in Articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22(1), 22(5), 22(9), 24 and 25 of the American Convention, [respectively,] in relation to Article 1(1) [of this instrument], to the detriment of Benito Tide Méndez, Willia[n] Medina Ferreras, 3 Lilia Jean Pierre, 4 [Aw]ilda Medina, 5 Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Jeanty Fils-Aimé, 6 Janise Midi, Nené Fils-Aimé, Diane Fils-Aimé, Antonio Fils-Aimé, Marilobi FilsAimé, Endry Fils-Aimé, Andren Fils-Aimé, Juan Fils-Aimé, Ber[s]son Gelin, 7 Ana Virginia Nolasco, Ana Lidia Sensión, Reyita Antonia Sensión, Andrea Alezy, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Victor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, M[ar]kenson Jean, 8 Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean and Nat[…]alie Jean. 9 The Commission also conclude[d] that the State had violated the right to personal integrity, protected under Article 5 of the Convention […] and the right to protection of the family, recognized in Article 17 of the American Convention, in relation to [its] Article 1(1) […], to the detriment of “Carmen Méndez, Aíta Méndez, Domingo Méndez, Rosa Méndez, José Méndez, Teresita Méndez, Carolina FilsAimé, María Esthe[l] [Matos] Medina […], 10 Jairo Pérez Medina, Gimena Pérez Medina, Antonio 2 The Commission declared the petition admissible with regard to Articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, as well as to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and considered that “Benito Tide Méndez, Antonio Sensión, Andrea Alezi, J[e]anty Fils-Aimé, Willia[n] Medina Ferreras, Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Bers[s]on Gelin” were the possible victims. 3 Although the Commission referred to “William Medina Ferreras” in the Merits report, for the effects of this Judgment he will be referred to as “Willian Medina Ferreras” (hereinafter also “Willian Medina,” “Willian” or “Mr. Medina Ferreras”), as indicated below (infra para. 83). 4 Although the State raised doubts about the name of this person, the Court, in keeping with its decision in this regard (infra para. 83), will refer to her as Lilia Jean Pierre. 5 Although the Commission referred to “Wilda Medina” in the Merits report, for the effects of this Judgment she will be referred to as “Awilda Medina Pérez” (hereinafter also “Awilda Medina” or “Awilda”), as indicated below (infra para. 83). 6 Although the State raised doubts about the name of this person, the Court, in keeping with its decision in this regard (infra para. 86), will refer to him as Jeanty Fils-Aimé (hereinafter also “Mr. Fils-Aimé” or “Jeanty”). 7 Although the Commission referred to “Berson Gelin” in the Merits report, for the effects of this Judgment, the Court will refer to him as “Bersson Gelin” (hereinafter also “Mr. Gelin”), based on the documentation provided that substantiates his name (infra para. 86). 8 Although, the Commission referred to “Mckenson Jean” in the Merits report, for the effects of this Judgment, the Court will refer to him as “Markenson Jean” (hereinafter also “Markenson”), as indicated below (infra footnote 56). 9 Although, the Commission referred to “Nathalie Jean” in the Merits report, for the effects of this Judgment, the Court will refer to her as “Natalie Jean” (hereinafter also “Natalie”), because this is how her name appears in her safe-conduct (infra para. 222 and footnote 264), a document issued by the State. 10 Although the Commission referred to “María Esther Medina Matos” in the Merits report, for the effects of this Judgment, the Court will refer to her as “María Esthel Matos Medina,” as indicated below (infra para. 95). 6