are exclusively judicial.” On this basis, the first paragraph of the Resolution orders the “provisional suspension of the issue of civil status certifications containing irregularities or flaws that make their issue legally impossible, and only to issue them for reasons that are strictly judicial.” Other paragraphs of the Resolution establish procedural norms relating to provisional suspension or final annulment, determining the intervention of the courts in the latter case, and also, in the former, the intervention of “[t]hose interested in the lifting of the provisional suspension of the issue of civil status certifications.” However, the operative paragraphs of the Resolution, as well as its preambular paragraphs and consideranda, do not make a direct reference to aspects relating to nationality or migratory status as grounds for the suspension or annulment of the records or the civil status certifications. 368 Therefore, as in the case of Circular No. 017, the Court notes that, in the understanding that, when applying Resolution 12-07, the respective authorities may interpret it in conformity with the American Convention and the standards established in this Judgment, the representatives’ argument is not sufficiently substantiated to consider that the said resolution, in itself, is incompatible with the Convention in a way that has prejudiced or violated the rights of the victims in this case. The Court also notes that the State has advised that the Central Electoral Board, “by means of Circular No. 32-2011 of October 19, 2011, has annulled Resolution No. 12-07 issued by the plenary session of the Board.” IX RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE, AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD AND THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 330. The Commission argued that, in violation of the Constitution and the laws that apply to repatriation procedures, State agents arbitrarily detained certain presumed victims while they were out and about or else in their homes, without an arrest warrant issued by a competent authority or administrative of judicial proceedings instituted with regard to these persons, who were not individualized or informed of the charges that led to their detention. Then, in less than 24 hours, the presumed victims were expelled from the territory of the Dominican Republic to the territory of Haiti. It added that the facts “occurred in the tense climate of mass collective expulsions,” that “specifically involved” individuals considered “to be Haitians,” and the phenotypic characteristics and skin color were “determinant elements” when selecting the persons who would be detained and then expelled. It alleged that the expulsions affected nationals and aliens alike, both documented and undocumented who had established “permanent residency in the Dominican Republic where they had close ties of family and work.” It added that “the [presumed] victims’ expulsion meant the automatic and de facto loss of all those effects that were left behind in Dominican territory, which represented an unlawful deprivation of their property for which they received no compensation.” Regarding the presumed victims of Dominican nationality, the Commission indicated that some of them lacked documentation, while others had official identity documents and some of the latter were 368 In this regard, one of the consideranda of the Resolution indicates that “the following are the most typical cases of irregularity: records contained on inserted folios, records registered after the books have been closed; records altered illegally with data such as the name of the person registered, dates, name of the parents or the declarant changed; duplications of birth declarations, and omission of substantial information, among others.” 107