and 7(6) of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect the rights established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Rose-Marie Petit-Homme, Joseph Pierre, Renaud Tima, Selafoi Pierre, Sylvie Felizor, Roland Israel and Rose Marie Dol. B. Freedom of movement, collective expulsion, and right to judicial guarantees 145. In this section, the Court will summarize the arguments of the parties and the InterAmerican Commission on the alleged collective expulsion and the right to judicial guarantees. Then, in order to determine the alleged violation of the guarantees of due process and of the prohibition to carry out collective expulsions, the Court will evaluate the facts of the case in light of Dominican law in force at the time of the facts and of international law and will set out its considerations on: (a) the protection due to migrants; (b) due process and the minimum guarantees for aliens in situations of deprivation of liberty, expulsion or deportation, and (c) the legal content of Article 22(9) of the American Convention on collective expulsions. 1. Arguments 146. The representatives alleged the violation of Article 22(9) of the American Convention by indicating that “the expeditious nature of the expulsion [of the presumed victims] demonstrated the Dominican Republic’s clear rejection of the possibility that the Haitians could legitimately contest the collective expulsion measure, [as well as] the factual impossibility of presenting to the State authorities an application for habeas corpus, a request for refugee status, asylum or any other measure of protection.” They added that “contrary to international law, the expulsion of the [presumed victims was] of a collective nature, since they were transported to the border in a group, without prior individualization in order to make a specific assessment of the migratory status of each of them.” Accordingly, they indicated that the collective and summary deportation, without prior individualization or the intervention of the courts, “totally contravenes Article 22(9),” thus violating “the prohibition of the collective expulsion of aliens.” In this regard, they concluded that the conduct of the Dominican authorities was based on “grounds of discrimination and xenophobia to the detriment of the Haitians.” In addition, they indicated that the only information the presumed victims received was that they must collect all the money they had in order to avoid going to prison. For these reasons, the representatives argued that the presumed victims were threatened and subjected to extortion by Dominican administrative personnel. 147. For the reasons stated above, the representatives concluded that the State had violated Articles 7, 8, 22(9) and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of Cecilia Petit-Homme, Pierre Selafoi, Sylvie Therméus, Joseph Pierre, Rose-Marie Dol, Roland Israel, Josué Maximus, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Tima and Winique Honorio. 148. For its part, the Commission did not allege a violation of Article 22(9) of the Convention, but argued that the State had violated Article 8 of this instrument, indicating “that although many judicial guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention incorporate language that is characteristic of criminal proceedings, similarly and owing to the possible consequences of migratory proceedings, strict application of the said guarantees is required.” In addition, it stressed “that migrants are in a situation of real inequality which may result in due process being impaired unless special measures are adopted to compensate for their defenseless.” 149. The State did not refer to the alleged violations of judicial guarantees and judicial protection in relation to the expulsion procedure, or to the alleged collective expulsion of the Haitian migrants. 43