44 210. The Commission observes that the next of kin who remained in the Dominican Republic also suffered the anguish of not knowing the whereabouts of their expelled family members. The effect of the victims’ expulsion was to sever family bonds and break up the family unit and adversely affected the normal development of family relations, even for the new members of the family. In some cases, the family was reunited within a matter of days, as happened in the case of Mrs. Alezy; in other cases, the separation lasted as long as 8 years, as in the case of the Sensión family. 211. The European Court held that the right to humane treatment was violated in the case of the mother of a deported child because of the anguish and anxiety she suffered as a result of her son’s 185 detention and the authorities’ subsequent failure to inform her of the deportation. In another case, the European Court also held that the suffering caused to a mother because of the authorities’ refusal to provide detailed information concerning her child’s whereabouts after the child was apprehended by 186 police in her presence, constituted a violation of the right to humane treatment. 212. In the particular case of Mrs. Carmen Méndez, she described the suffering she experienced during the period when she had no idea of her son’s whereabouts, no idea how he would ever get back if he had never been to Haiti, or whether he was dead or alive; she observed that “those 187 deportations were very aggressive and brutal acts.” For his part, Antonio Sensión said that the authorities refused to provide him with any information concerning his family’s whereabouts and that he had to make several trips before he was reunited with them; this caused him great anxiety, the loss of several days of work and significant expense. 213. Based on the above considerations, the Commission finds that the State violated the right to human treatment recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention, and the right to protection of the family recognized in Article 17 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Carmen Méndez, Aíta Méndez, Domingo Méndez, Rosa Méndez, José Méndez y Teresita Méndez, Carolina Fils-Aime, William Gelin, María Esther Medina Matos, Jairo Pérez Medina, Gimena Pérez Medina, Antonio Sensión, Ana Dileidy Sensión, Maximiliano Sensión, Emiliano Mache Sensión, Analideire Sensión, Gili Sainlis, Jamson Gelin, Faica Gelin, Kenson Gelin, Jessica Jean, Víctor Manuel Jean. E. Right to recognition as a person before the law and the right to nationality (articles 3 and 20 of the American Convention), read in conjunction with the principle of equality before the law (Article 24 of the American Convention) and the obligation to respect rights without discrimination (Article 1(1) of the American Convention) 214. Article 3 of the American Convention reads as follows: Every person has the right to recognition as a person before the law. 215. Article 20 of the American Convention provides that: 1. Every person has the right to a nationality. 2. Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality. 3. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or of the right to change it. 185 ECHR, Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium. Ref.: 13178/03. Judgment of October 12, 2006. 186 ECHR, Kurt v. Turkey. Case No. 15/1977/799/1002. Judgment of May 25, 1998, paragraph 134. 187 Annex 3. Statement by Benito Tide Méndez. Annex J of the Addendum to the original petition that the petitioners presented in 2002. Annex V of the observations on the merits that the petitioners presented on April 16, 2009. Annex 59. Testimony of Carmen Méndez. Annex V of the observations on the merits that the petitioners presented on April 16, 2009.