after birth, regardless of their descent or origin, and the migratory situation of their parents. 496 471. Lastly, the Court finds it pertinent to recall, without prejudice to the measures that it has established, that, in their sphere of competence, “all the authorities and organs of a State Party to the Convention have the obligation to exercise a ‘control of conventionality.’” 497 B.3.4. Other measures 472. In the circumstances of this case, the Court finds it pertinent that the State adopt other measures in order to implement the expulsion or deportation procedures in strict compliance with the guarantees of due process, and not to carry out collective detentions or expulsions of aliens. B.3.5. Other measures requested 473. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to “investigate the facts of this case, determine who is responsible for the violations that have been proved, and establish the necessary sanctions.” 474. The representatives indicated that “the victims were detained, in an illegal and arbitrary manner, and subsequently expelled from Dominican territory.” Accordingly, they asked that the Court order the State: (a) “to investigate the facts and to punish those responsible. This should include conducting the necessary administrative and criminal proceedings, which should encompass all those who took part in the [facts]”; (b) to organize an act of “public acknowledgement of the State’s responsibility”; (c) to provide “free medical and psychosocial assistance to the victims and the members of their families ensuring that they can have access to a State medical center in which they are provided with appropriate and personalized treatment that will help them heal their physical and psychological wounds arising from the violations they suffered.” The treatment should “include the cost of any medicines that are prescribed” and should follow an “individual assessment” of each victim. The representatives also requested that the medical center that provides the necessary attention “should be in a place accessible to the victims’ homes.” Lastly, they indicated that, for the victims who live in Haiti, the State should “provide a reasonable sum of money to cover the costs corresponding to medical and psychological treatment, and the purchase of any medicines they are prescribed.” 475. The Court has already determined that, in this case and based on the respective arguments that have been presented, it is not in order to examine the alleged failure to observe the obligation to investigate the facts of the case. Regarding the psychosocial 496 Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, para. 239 to 241. In this regard, paragraph 240 establishes that “[t]his Court considers that the State, when establishing the requirements for the late registration of births, should take into account the particularly vulnerable situation of Dominican children of Haitian descent. The requirements should not represent an obstacle to obtain Dominican nationality and should be only those that are essential to establish that the birth took place in the Dominican Republic. In this regard, the identification of the father or the mother of the child should not be restricted to the presentation of the identity and electoral card, but, to this end, the State should accept any other appropriate public document, because the said identity card is exclusive to Dominican citizens. Also, the requirements must be standard and clearly established, so that the application is not subject to the discretion of State officials, thus ensuring the legal certainty of those who use this procedure, and in order to effectively ensure the rights established in the American Convention, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Convention.” 497 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 142, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, para. 436. 147