the child recognized in Article 19 of the Convention, with regard to those victims who were children at the time of the expulsion. B.2.2. Rights to freedom of movement and residence, to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection B.2.2.1. Collective expulsions of Haitian nationals (Article 22(9)) 381. As indicated above, the Court has indicated that, to comply with the prohibition of collective expulsions, proceedings that may result in the expulsion or deportation of an alien must be individual in order to assess the personal circumstances of each person, and this requires, at least, the identification of the person and the clarification of the particular circumstances of his migratory situation. In addition, such proceedings must not discriminate for reasons of nationality, color, race, sex, language, religion, political opinion, social origin or any other condition, and must observe the basic guarantees mentioned previously (supra paras. 356 to 358). 438 382. However, the facts of the case sub judice reveal that Lilia Jean Pierre, Janise Midi, Marlene Mesidor and Markenson Jean, of Haitian nationality, were detained and expelled in less than 48 hours together with their family members and other persons, without any evidence that they had been submitted to an individualized evaluation of the kind mentioned above prior to being expelled (supra paras. 201, 210 and 223). The State has not provided any evidence proving that it had instituted formal proceedings to identify these individuals, or to evaluate the particular circumstances of their migratory situation. 383. Furthermore, the statements of the presumed victims reveal that the expulsions were carried out in a summary manner and as a group. 439 Thus, the Court recalls that the members of the Medina family, including Lilia Jean Pierre, were taken to the border with Haiti together with other persons (supra para. 201) Also, the bus that Marlene Mesidor and the other members of the Jean family were forced to board in order to be expelled to 438 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 175, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia, para. 133. See also: Expert opinion of Pablo Ceriani Cernadas, In his statement he indicated that the term racial profiling, “especially when one observes the use of profiles in negative terms, relates to the program, practice, policy, specific measures by which law enforcement officials in general – in this case, we can speak of security forces with competence in the area of immigration – establish, explicitly or implicitly, certain criteria based on, it could be ethnic origin, or the language or nationality of origin of a person, to implement, above all, measures of investigation and control, in this case control or verification of immigration offenses, to provide a reasonable and objective justification to overcome those types of control mechanisms, and which subsequently, have a whole series of negative impacts, not only on migrants, but also on society.” In addition, he stated that “a measure of collective expulsion, prohibited not only by the American Convention on Human Rights, but also by other regional and universal treaties such as the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers, refers to the decision to expel a person that is not the result of due process in which, with the appropriate guarantees, the different circumstances, especially the personal situation and the specific facts in each case, have been evaluated thoroughly and in sufficient detail, in order to eventually reach a decision on a sanction that could constitute an eventual expulsion. If these circumstances in terms of procedural guarantees are not present – which also signify the substantive guarantees that are being discussed during those proceedings – we would be speaking of what, in migratory terms, is usually referred to as automatic expulsion mechanisms that, in many cases, may constitute what is called collective expulsions.” He added that “the number of persons is irrelevant as regards collective expulsion; the important point is how the proceedings functioned, how the decision was reached, and what were the procedural and substantive stages that resulted in the expulsion order and the implementation of those measures (expert opinion of Pablo Ceriani Cernadas provided during the public hearing). 439 According to the statements of the presumed victims, they were deprived of liberty or taken from their homes without being given the opportunity to take some of their possessions with them, and without being able to return to their place of origin for a long time. According to the presumed victims, they had their home furnishings, personal effects, clothes, livestock, savings and cash or were owed wages, and in other cases, the presumed victims were deprived of possessions they had taken with them by the authorities who detained them. 123