opinion insofar as it is in keeping with the purpose for which it was requested (supra para. 12). 151. In view of the State’s observations, the Court will consider the content of the expert opinions to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose for which they were requested. Lastly, the Court considers that these observations by the State do not affect the admissibility of the expert opinions, and therefore admits them. 152. It should also be placed on record that the State referred to the power of attorney of Victor Jean, Marlene Mesidor and Markenson Jean and argued that Victor Jean had placed his fingerprint on the power and that, “his signature appears on the alleged sworn statement of January 11, 2001”; accordingly, it considered that one of the two documents was “false.” In addition, the State affirmed that the power of attorney “had not been notarized, so that it lacked authentication,” and that this irregularity encompasses the “deponents that have supposedly endorsed it: Marlene Mesidor and Markenson […] Jean.” Given the contradiction, it asked that “both documents be excluded from the body of evidence.” Regarding the said power of attorney, the Court has mentioned similar considerations as those made by the State under the alleged “Absence of powers of attorney in favor of the representatives” (supra para. 88). In relation to the State’s comments on the statement of January 11, 2001, this Court refers back to its previous considerations in this regard (supra para. 124). VII FACTS A) Context 153. The Commission and the representatives have argued, linking it to the facts of this case, the existence of a context of discrimination against the Haitian population and those of Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic. They also indicated that this includes the practice of collective expulsions and, with regard to individuals of Haitian descent born in Dominican territory, the denial of access to personal identification documents. The State rejected these accusations. Based on the arguments of the parties and the Commission, and their alleged relevance with regard to the facts of the case, the Court deems it pertinent to examine the said context. 154. The Court recalls that, in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction, it has examined different historical, social and political contexts that have allowed it to situate the facts that were alleged to have violated the American Convention within the context of the specific circumstances in which they occurred. In addition, in some cases, the context made it possible to characterize the facts as part of a systematic pattern of human rights violations 106 and/or was taken into account to determine the international responsibility of the State. 107 Bearing in mind the pertinent aspects of this case, the Court will refer to: (a) the socio-economic situation of Haitians and those of Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic and the alleged discriminatory concept held of them; 108 (b) the problem that has 106 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 126, 147 and 148, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 53. 107 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 61 and 62, and Case of Veliz Franco v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 65. 108 The Commission has referred to the existence in the Dominican Republic of “[a]nti-Haitianism and […] tensions […] over the flow of Haitian immigrants into [that country].” The representatives have said that “[t]he phenomenon of discrimination against Haitians or those of Haitian descent is deeply-rooted in Dominican society, mainly against those whose traits reveal African descent.” The State denied these accusations (infra para. 159). 47