prevented from proving their nationality while, in other cases, the Dominican authorities examined, retained and destroyed their documentation. 331. The Commission also indicated that the presumed victims were not given the possibility of their cases being subject to an individual, objective and reasonable examination by the Dominican authorities. It underscored that the State has presented no evidence or information proving that it made a “detailed analysis of the particular circumstances of each of the presumed victims.” According to the Commission, the presumed victims “did not have sufficient time or means to be able to prove their nationality or their legal status in the Dominican Republic; they were not provided with legal assistance; they were unable to appeal the decision taken, and there was no order from a competent, independent and impartial authority that decided their deportation.” It also indicated that “there were significant obstacles to access to justice in this case” relating to the speed with which the expulsions took place; moreover “the geography made access to a competent judge or court difficult, and there was no way to prove their identity.” The Commission indicated that the presumed victims “did not even have guarantees of due process […] and there was no effective judicial remedy in domestic law that would have allowed them to contest the decision of the Dominican authorities to expel them.” Proceedings resulting in the detention and return of aliens to the territory of a State by exclusion, expulsion or extradition entail the obligation to subject them to the same basic and non-derogable procedural protections that are applicable to proceedings of a criminal nature. Lastly, the Commission referred to the principle whereby detention for immigration issues must be the exception, when affirming “immigration policy must be premised on a presumption of liberty and not on a presumption of detention. Immigration detention must be the exception and justified only when lawful and non-arbitrary.” 332. The Commission considered that the State had violated the right to personal liberty (Article 7), the right to freedom of movement and residence (Article 22(1)), 369 the prohibition to expel nationals (Article 22(5)), the prohibition of the collective expulsion of aliens (Article 22(9)), the right to equal protection of the law (Article 24), and the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection (Articles 8(1) and 25(1)), of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect the rights of the Convention without discrimination, established in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of certain presumed victims, 370 and also, the rights of the child (Article 19) of the Convention, to the detriment of the presumed victims who were children at the time of the events. 333. The representatives argued that the presumed victims were detained because of their physical characteristics, based on their race or ethnic origin, owing to which they were identified as Haitians or of Haitian descent, and treated as irregular migrants, without the existence of an arrest warrant or a prior investigation to comply with the formalities established in Dominican laws for the “detention” of individuals for migratory reasons. They indicated that the legal requirements were not met in any of the cases; hence, the detentions of the said individuals had been illegal and arbitrary. They added that the presumed victims were not informed of the reasons for their detention, or brought before a judicial authority, or provided with an effective remedy to request a review of the lawfulness of their detention. Following their detention, they were taken to 369 The Commission argued this in general, without specifying how the violation of this right had affected each of the presumed victims. 370 Among others, the Commission named: Willian Medina Ferreras, Lilia Jean Pierre, Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Jeanty Fils-Aimé, Janise Midi, Diana Fils-Aimé, Antonio Fils-Aimé, Endry FilsAimé, Nené Fils-Aimé, Bersson Gelin, Ana Virginia Nolasco, Ana Lidia Sensión, Reyita Antonia Sensión, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Victor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, Markenson Jean, Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean and Natalie Jean, as applicable. 108