8 41. It maintained that in an effort to make these procedures as transparent as possible, the Office of the Director General of Immigration had repeatedly extended public invitations to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and any other civil society institution to observe the repatriation procedures. 42. It also reported that it held a conference on the Dominican Republic’s relations with Haiti in June 1999 and that the governments of the Dominican Republic and Haiti had held talks through the Dominican-Haitian Bilateral Joint Commission created in 1996, which resulted in the approval of a Memorandum of Understanding which the foreign ministers of the two countries signed in June 1998. 43. The State observed that on November 26, 1999, the Foreign Ministers of the two countries inaugurated a technical meeting between the competent Dominican and Haitian immigration authorities. As a result of this meeting, they signed the “Protocol of Understanding between the Dominican Republic and the Republic of Haiti on the Repatriation Mechanisms,” which spells out a number of guarantees in cases of repatriation. 44. The State also pointed out that cooperation in the repatriation of Haitians was further strengthened with the signing of a Declaration on the Conditions for Hiring Nationals of Both Countries, on February 23, 2000. 45. The State expressed its determination to continue to strengthen and improve the mechanisms, procedures and institutions involved in repatriation, while correcting any isolated case of excess or violation of any alien’s rights, just as it had been doing when irregularities had been discovered; this included prosecution of the offending national authority. 46. With specific reference to the alleged victims in this case, the State denied the petitioners’ allegations and asserted that in the detention process, citizens had every right and means to present any type of document that would prove they had legal immigration status in the Dominican Republic. It further asserted that if the person to be repatriated did not have documentation but claimed to have Dominican affiliation, that person would be permitted to give the name of his/her family members and place of residence; if it was then established that the person was making false claims, that person would be permitted to collect his/her personal belongings. It also observed that there was no record that the alleged victims had ever turned to the Dominican courts or any other authority seeking legal protection. 47. Furthermore, in the friendly settlement process, the State indicated that in the case of persons born on Dominican territory who have documentation, “the solution to these cases ought not to be difficult, as anyone in such a situation is protected by the laws that establish the legal principles governing the acquisition of Dominican citizenship.” Secondly, in the case of persons born in the Dominican Republic who do not have official documents, the State indicated that the petitioners should have complied with the requirements that domestic law establishes. Finally, with regard to persons born in Haiti, the State asserted that “it cannot be obliged to issue Haitian identification papers, as this is a sovereign act that is the exclusive purview of the Haitian State.” 48. During the working meeting held on March 26, 2011, the State provided documentation related to Benito Tide Méndez, William Medina Ferreras, Antonio Sensión and Carmen Méndez. In a communicated of July 26, 2011, the State supplied a copy of the long-form birth certificates of Benito Tide Méndez, William Medina Ferreras and Antonio Sensión. IV. PROVEN FACTS