and Dominicans of Haitian descent (supra paras. 171). The facts related to the presumed victims conform to this context and the modus operandi applied in those practices (supra paras. 167 to 169, 201, 210, 213, 221 and 223). 401. Regarding racial discrimination, 454 the Court has recognized “the difficulty for those who are the object of discrimination to prove cases of racial prejudice” and agrees with the European Court that, in certain cases of human rights violations motivated by discrimination, the burden of proof falls on the State, which controls the means to clarify events that occurred in its territory. 455 402. In addition, with regard to the rights of migrants, the Court has established that it is permissible for the State to grant a different treatment to documented migrants in relation to undocumented migrants, or to immigrants in relation nationals, “provided that this treatment is reasonable, objective and proportionate, and does not harm human rights.” 456 However, “the obligation to respect and to ensure the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination is independent of the migratory status of a person in a State.” In other words, States have the obligation to ensure this fundamental principle to their citizens and to any alien who is in their territory, without any discrimination based on their regular or irregular presence, their nationality, race, gender or any other condition. 457 403. Furthermore, the Court has already established that the deprivations of liberty were not implemented in order to conduct a formal immigration proceeding, and the way in which the presumed victims were detained while they were out and about or in their home indicates a presumption by the State agents that, based on their physical characteristics, the presumed victims must belong to the specific group of Haitians or individuals of Haitian origin. 404. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the established facts and the context in which the facts of this case occurred reveal that the victims were not deprived of liberty in order to conduct formal immigration proceedings, but were detained and expelled mainly owing to their physical characteristics and the fact that they belonged to a specific group; that is, because they were Haitians or of Haitian origin. This constituted a discriminatory action to the detriment of the victims due to their condition as Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent, which impaired the enjoyment of the rights that the Court found had been violated. Consequently, the Court concludes that, regarding the rights whose violation has been declared, the State failed to comply with the obligation 454 In this regard, the Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes respect for and guarantee of the rights recognized therein, “without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, […] national or social origin, economic status, […] or any other social condition.” In addition, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines discrimination as: “[…] any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of January 4, 1969, Article 1. Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 231. 455 Cf. Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012 Series C No. 240, para. 132, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 229. 456 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants OC-17/02, para. 119; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 233, and Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and/or in Need of International Protection. OC-21/14, footnote 74. 457 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. OC-18/03, para. 118, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, para. 155. 128