2 that there was an established repatriation proceeding that was based on the law and implemented by the Office of the Director General of Immigration. It claimed that this proceeding guaranteed due process to persons facing repatriation, and ensured individualized treatment of such cases. As for the specific situation of the alleged victims, the Dominican State denied the petitioners’ allegations and argued that in the detention process, individuals had every right and opportunity to present any type of document showing that they had legal immigration status in the Dominican Republic. The State further asserted that there was no record indicating that the petitioners ever turned to any court or authority in the Dominican Republic seeking legal protection for the persons whose rights they claimed were violated. 4. On October 13, 2005, the Commission approved Report No. 68/05, in which it declared that it was competent to examine the petition and decided that the petition was admissible with respect to the alleged violation of the rights protected under articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof, and with respect to 4 Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 5. After examining the evidence and the arguments made by the parties, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the Dominican State is responsible for violation of the rights to juridical personality, the right to humane treatment, the right to personal liberty, the right to a fair trial, the rights of the family, the rights of the child, the right to nationality, the right to property, freedom of movement and residence, right to equal protection, and the right to judicial protection, recognized, respectively, in articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22.1, 22.5, 22.9, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Benito Tide Méndez, William Medina Ferreras, Lilia Jean Pierre, Wilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Jeanty Fils-Aime, Janise Midi, Nene Fils-Aime, Diane Fils-Aime, Antonio Fils-Aime, Marilobi Fils-Aime, Endry Fils-Aime, Andren Fils-Aime, Juan Fils-Aime, Berson Gelin, Ana Virginia Nolaco, Ana Lidia Sensión, Reyita Antonia Sensión, Andrea Alezy, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Víctor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, McKenson Jean, Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean and Nathalie Jean. The Commission also concludes that the State violated the right to humane treatment, protected under Article 5 of the American Convention, and the rights of the family protected under Article 17 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of Carmen Méndez, Aíta Méndez, Domingo Méndez, Rosa Méndez, José Méndez y Teresita Méndez, Carolina FilsAime, William Gelin, María Esther Medina Matos, Jairo Pérez Medina, Gimena Pérez Medina, Antonio Sensión, Ana Dileidy Sensión, Maximiliano Sensión, Emiliano Mache Sensión, Analideire Sensión, Gili Sainlis, Jamson Gelin, Faica Gelin, Kenson Gelin, Jessica Jean, Víctor Manuel Jean. Moreover, the Commission considers that, to date of the approval of the present report, it does not have sufficient elements to rule on possible violations of article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. II. PROCESSING WITH THE COMMISSION 6. The Commission received the original petition on November 12, 1999. The processing the petition underwent from the time it was presented to the date of the decision on admissibility is 5 documented in Admissibility Report No. 68/05, approved on October 13, 2005. 7. On November 22, 1999, during its 105th session, the Commission asked the State to take precautionary measures in order to put a stop to the collective expulsions of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent and, where deportations of persons within Dominican territory were called for, to ensure that due process guarantees were fully observed. 8. On November 16, 2005, the Commission sent the parties notification of the Admissibility Report’s approval. It advised them that the case had been registered as number 12.271 and, pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure then in force, gave the petitioners two months in which to submit any additional observations they might have concerning the merits of the case. Also, in 4 IACHR, Report No. 68/05 (Admissibility), Petition 12.271, Benito Tide Méndez, Antonio Sensión, Andrea Alezi, Janty Fils-Aime, William Medina Ferreras, Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Berson Gelin et al., Dominican Republic, October 13, 2005. 5 IACHR, Report No. 68/05, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6.