characteristics, in some cases, to detention centers for ordinary prisoners – even if they were accompanied by young children – without knowing what would happen to them. In addition, the representatives alleged that the presumed victims saw how the authorities mistreated other people detained in similar circumstances, and also that they themselves were subject to verbal abuse. This caused the presumed victims to feel anguish and helplessness together with a well-founded fear that they, or one of their family members, could be a victim of violence and ill-treatment by the authorities. Several family groups were taken to detention centers without appropriate conditions before their deportation, even though they had not committed a wrongful act and it was never proved that they had committed an immigration offense, and this caused profound suffering. The representatives also stated that the presumed victims were transported to the border in inadequate conditions; they were not given food or water. 435. Like the Commission, the representatives indicated that the identity documents of some of the presumed victims were seized, and others had been unable to obtain identity documents for themselves and their children, owing to the context of discrimination towards Dominicans of Haitian descent that reigns in the Dominican Republic. Accordingly, they lived in a situation of uncertainty because they did not possess any proof of their identity or juridical personality. The representatives added that those expelled suffered profoundly because they were obliged to live in a country that they did not know. Furthermore, they referred to the opinion of expert witness Rosa Del Rosario Lara, who explained the different symptoms of anxiety and depression suffered by the presumed victims in relation to the events that occurred during the expulsions, and the situation that they faced during the time before they were able to reunite with their family members. In addition, the representatives indicated that the different violations committed to the detriment of the presumed victims in this case caused profound suffering to the members of their families. 436. Lastly, the representatives asked the Court to declare the violation of the right to personal integrity, recognized in Article 5 of the Convention, with regard to the members of the Medina, Fils-Aimé, Sensión, Jean, Gelin and Pérez Charles families who were detained or expelled, in relation to the failure to comply with the obligations established in Article 1(1) of the Convention and the obligations contained in Article 19 of this instrument, in the case of the children. 437. The State indicated that the arrest of individuals who will be deported is part of the usual deportation process and that they are taken to “special shelters” for undocumented migrants. This deportation process is governed by Immigration Law No. 95 of 1939. 480 The State also argued that the case file does not contain any medical certificate, photograph or other document proving that the presumed victims were caused any physical harm. Furthermore, there is no record that they were, in fact, subject to verbal abuse, which would determine whether the arrest was truly an arbitrary detention; in other words, that it was not in keeping with the legitimate exercise of the State’s sovereignty to maintain public order. Based on the legal arguments presented, the Court’s 480 Article 13 of this law established that: "[t]he following aliens shall be arrested and deported by order of the Secretary of State for Internal Affairs and Police or of other officials designated to this end: 1. Any alien who enters the Republic following the date of publication of this law, by means of false or misleading declarations or without inspection and admission by the immigration authorities at one of the indicated ports of entry; […] 7. Any alien who remains in the Republic in violation of any restriction or condition under which he was admitted as a non-immigrant; […] 10. Any alien who has entered the Republic before the date of the entry into force of this law who does not possess a residence permit and who, within three months of this date, does not request a residence permit, as required by this law.” 138