54 “the prohibition of collective expulsion could be violated by expelling a small group of aliens (e.g. two or 234 more) who did not receive individual consideration of their case.” 256. The European Court of Human Rights has held that collective expulsion “is to be understood as any measure compelling aliens, as a group, to leave a country, except where such a measure is taken on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each 235 individual alien of the group” and concluded that the rule prohibiting collective expulsions is violated when “at no stage in the period between the service of the notice on the aliens to attend the police station and their expulsion did the procedure afford sufficient guarantees demonstrating that the personal 236 circumstances of each of those concerned had been genuinely and individually taken into account.” 257. The European Court also held that a transfer of persons carried out without the authorities examining each applicant’s individual situation or conducting any procedure to identify each one of the persons being transferred constituted a collective expulsion and was thus a breach of Article 4 237 of Protocol No. 4. 258. Article 12(5) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides that the mass expulsion of non-nationals shall be that which is aimed at national, racial, ethnic or religious groups. Here, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has repeatedly held that “[m]ass expulsions of any category of persons, whether on the basis of nationality, religion, ethnic, racial or other 238 considerations, constitute special violation of human rights.” The African Commission has also written that mass expulsion can involve violations of other rights recognized and guaranteed in the African Charter, such as the right to family protection, the right to property, the right to work, the right to education and the principle of equal protection of the law and non-discrimination when the victims have been expelled because of their origin, and the right to appeal to other competent national bodies against acts 239 that violate their fundamental rights. 259. The Human Rights Committee has expressed concern over the continuing reports of massive deportations of persons of ethnic Haitian origin, even those who are nationals of the Dominican Republic. It wrote that mass expulsion of non-nationals was in breach of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that the Dominican State had an obligation to ensure all Dominican citizens the right not to be expelled from their country and to provide all those undergoing deportation proceedings the 240 guarantees established in the Covenant. 260. As for the guarantee of equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination, the Commission feels compelled to point out that while States have the right to control their borders, to determine the requirements for entering and remaining within Dominican territory, and the grounds for 234 UN, International Law Commission, Expulsion of Aliens, Memorandum by the Secretariat, paragraph 990, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/565 (August 2006). 235 ECHR, Conka v. Belgium, Judgment of February 5, 2002, paragraph 59. 236 ECHR, Conka v. Belgium, Judgment of February 5, 2002, paragraph 63. 237 ECHR [Grand Chamber], Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy. Judgment of February 23, 2012, Application No. 27765/09, paragraph 185. 238 ACHPR, Institute for Human Rights and Development (IHRDA) v. Republic of Angola. Communication No. 292/2004, May 7 to 22, 2008, paragraph 69; ACHPR, Recontre Africaine pour la Defence des Droits de l’Homme (RADDH) v. Zambia. Communication No. 71/92, October 1996, paragraph 19; ACHPR, African Institute for Human Rights and Development (AIHRD) (on behalf of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea) v. Republic of Guinea. Communication No. 249/2002, November 23 to December 7, 2004, paragraph 69; ACHPR, Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture (OMCT) and Others v. Rwanda. Communications No. 27/89, 46/91, 49/91, 99/93, October 1996. 239 ACHPR, Union Inter-Africaine des Droits de l’Homme (UIADH) and Others v. Angola. Communication No. 159/1996, November 11, 1997, paragraphs 17-19. 240 UN, Human Rights Committee, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Dominican Republic. 04/26/2001.CCPR/CO/71/DOM, April 26, 2001, paragraph 16.