REPORT No. 64/12 CASE 12.271 MERITS BENITO TIDE MÉNDEZ ET AL. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC March 29, 2012 I. SUMMARY 1. On November 12, 1999, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition that the International Human Rights Law Clinic at Boalt Hall School of Law of the University of California, Berkeley, the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and the National Coalition for Haitian 1 Rights (NCHR) (hereinafter “the petitioners) lodged against the Dominican Republic (hereinafter “the State,” “the Dominican Republic” or “the Dominican State”) alleging violation of the rights protected under articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention,” “the Convention” or “the ACHR”) in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof. In the original petition, the IACHR was asked to grant precautionary measures on the grounds that hundreds of thousands of persons were being expelled from the Dominican Republic. Later, as the petition was being processed, the petitioners named the following persons as alleged victims in the case: Benito Tide Méndez, William Medina Ferreras, Lilia Jean Pierre, Jeanty Fils-Aime, Janise Midi, Ana Virginia Nolaco, Andrea Alezy, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Víctor Jean, Marlene Mesidor; and the following children born in the Dominican Republic: Wilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Nene Fils-Aime, Diane Fils-Aime, Antonio Fils-Aime, Marilobi Fils-Aime, Endry Fils-Aime, Andren Fils-Aime, 2 Juan Fils-Aime, Berson Gelin, Ana Lidia Sensión and Reyita Antonia Sensión , Victoria Jean, Miguel 3 Jean y Nathalie Jean (all the whom will hereinafter be collectively referred to as “the alleged victims”). 2. The petitioners claimed that the alleged victims were detained and, within less than 24 hours, arbitrarily expelled from the Dominican Republic to Haiti without any advance notice, without a hearing and without being given the opportunity to collect their personal effects and contact family members. The circumstances of their expulsion had very serious consequences, including material losses and profound personal suffering. The petitioners added that the expulsions were carried out without the necessary due process guarantees and without taking appropriate measures to protect the best interests of the children. The petitioners further assert that State failed to afford the alleged victims an effective judicial remedy by which to challenge the authorities’ decision to expel them from the country or to question the lawfulness of their arrest. The petitioners also argued that these expulsions are part of the Dominican State’s established practice of systematically and collectively expelling persons it presumes to be of Haitian origin. This practice is done through the use of “racial profiling, based on the victim’s presumed nationality,” and thus constitutes discrimination. The petitioners further maintained that the Dominican authorities keep Dominicans of Haitian descent and Haitians living in the Dominican Republic undocumented, which exposes them to possible expulsion. 3. The State, for its part, reaffirmed that the repatriation of aliens in dominican territory unlawfully is a non-renounceable and non-negotiable right of the dominican State, as it is a fundamental principle of its sovereignty and does not violate any treaty or convention to which the Dominican Republic is party. The State also denied that it was engaging in the practice of collective repatriations and reported 1 During the merits phase, the alleged victims were represented by the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia University School of Law, the Movement of Dominican-Haitian Women (MUDHA) and the Support Group to Repatriates and Refugees (GARR). 2 Information the representatives provided when preparing the Addendum to the Request for Provisional Measures filed with the Inter-American Court on behalf of persons who, although not named, belong to a defined category: Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin who were subject to the jurisdiction of the Dominican Republic, June 13, 2000. 3 Information presented by the petitioners on January 30, 2002.