5 economic status is low. The authorities target these people because they assume that they are Haitians or of Haitian descent. The petitioners further alleged that the Dominican authorities keep Dominicans of Haitian origin and Haitians living in the Dominican Republic permanently undocumented by continually denying them legal documentation. 22. The petitioners maintained that the tightening of immigration policy is not a legitimate justification for violating the principle of equal protection of the law and nondiscrimination recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention. They asserted that the summary expulsions of the alleged victims were based on race, were conducted using “racial profiling, based on the victim’s presumed nationality” and were, therefore, discriminatory. Similarly they argued that the discrimination manifested itself in a variety of ways, among them the racist verbal abuse practiced by state agents and their use of force against persons identified as Haitians. The petitioners therefore alleged that the expulsions are a prima facie case of discrimination. 23. According to the petitioners, in discrimination cases the burden of proof should be reversed, especially when all or most of the information as to how the events unfolded is in the State’s exclusive control and when, as in this case, the State allegedly failed to provide a legitimate justification for the discriminatory treatment that the alleged victims suffered. 24. Concerning the right to personal liberty, the petitioners maintained that the alleged victims were deprived of their freedom without ever being informed of any deportation proceeding against them or of the reasons for their arrest; they were not immediately brought before a competent judge or authority who could examine the lawfulness of their arrest. 25. The petitioners asserted that the Dominican officials who participated in the arrest and expulsion of the alleged victims did not follow the procedures prescribed by Dominican law –Immigration Law No 95 of 1939 and its Regulation No. 279 of May 12, 1939, and the Protocol of Understanding concluded between the Dominican Republic and the Republic of Haiti on Repatriation Mechanismswhich, according to the petitioners, established a number of guarantees for immigrants and standards to be followed when effecting deportations, such as: i) conducting a “thorough investigation” when a violation of immigration law may have been committed; ii) a well-founded request seeking an “arrest warrant” where deportation is called for; iii) the detainee’s right to a hearing; iv) the detainee’s right to a second review of his/her case; and v) examination by the Secretary of State of the Interior and Police and a reasoned decision. 26. As for the right to humane treatment, the petitioners argued that the analysis of the alleged victims’ treatment must consider racial discrimination as a factor, as an arrest based solely on race is a clear violation of the individual’s most basic rights. Racial profiling and discriminatory treatment by the authorities of a State are a violation of the principle prohibiting degrading treatment. 27. The petitioners also asserted that the alleged victims were subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment on three levels: i) the discriminatory treatment they suffered; ii) being denied documentation, and iii) being uprooted. The petitioners argued, firstly, that the alleged victim were subjected to degrading treatment when forcibly arrested, sustained injuries while in police custody, and were distinguished as a group based on race. Specifically, they asserted that Benito Tide Méndez was beaten and robbed of the money he was carrying and that the Medina Ferreras family was forced to walk two kilometers at night and was held under arrest under degrading conditions, in an overcrowded cell with no bathroom, no food, no water and no medical attention. The petitioners observed that the Fils-Aime family was bussed to the border -without food, water or bathrooms- and forced to cross the border by fording a river. In the case of Mr. Gelin, the petitioners alleged that his right to humane treatment was violated because he was detained in military facilities, was denied the opportunity to contact family members and was semi-permanently separated from his son. The petitioners alleged that the Sensión family was arrested, transported to the border and expelled to Haiti. As regards the Jean family, officers did not allow Ms. Mesidor to take a shower and Mr. Jean was detained shoeless and in his pajamas.