56 xenophobic attitudes in the public at large and would run counter to an effective policy aimed at 246 combating racial discrimination.” It concluded, therefore, that this constituted a violation of the victim’s 247 right to equality before the law and nondiscrimination. 264. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination wrote the following concerning authorities’ use of racial profiles: “States parties should take the necessary steps to prevent questioning, arrests and searches which are in reality based solely on the physical appearance of a person, that person’s colour or features or membership of a racial or ethnic group, or any profiling which exposes him 248 or her to greater suspicion.” The Committee has expressed concern over identity checks and police raids carried out on the basis of ethnic and racial profiling in public places and neighbourhoods with high concentrations of foreigners, with the aim of arresting anyone in an irregular situation in the State party. For that reason, the Committee has urged States that engage in practices of this kind to take effective 249 measures to eradicate the practice of identity checks based on ethnic and racial profiles. 265. The petitioners argued that the Convention expressly prohibits collective expulsions and that the victims were denied any possibility of moving about the very country in which they were born and/or had created their family ties and established their residency. They also argued that the expulsions to which the victims were subjected were based on race and conducted using “racial profiles that were premised on the victim’s presumed nationality” and that were, by their very nature, discriminatory. The State, for its part, maintained that the need to keep repatriation moving at a steady pace ought not to be confused with “massive” repatriations that are by definition indiscriminate. However, it did not provide any specific evidence relating to the processes involved in repatriating the victims. 266. The Commission has taken as fact that the victims in this case were expelled from the territory of the Dominican Republic to Haitian territory within less than 24 hours, thereby precluding any possibility that the Dominican authorities would do an objective and reasonable analysis of each victim’s particular circumstance. The Commission has also taken as fact that the expulsions affected nationals and aliens alike, both documented and undocumented, who had established permanent residency in the Dominican Republic, where they had close ties of family and work. Furthermore, according to the information available, the victims were expelled amid a cold atmosphere of collective and massive expulsions of persons. 267. The Commission has established that the immigration control operations or sweeps that lead to the detention and subsequent deportation of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic are conducted as follows: a) Dominican authorities (whether they be immigration agents, police or military) arrest Haitians, Dominicans of Haitian descent or those whom they regard as Haitians based on the darker skin color, the physical features or the command of the language of the persons being detained; b) the detentions are based on a presumption that the persons detained are Haitians whose immigration status is irregular and the persons taken into custody are prevented from proving whether they are Dominican nationals or are living in Dominican territory legally; and c) in many cases, the Dominican authorities retain or destroy these individuals’ identification documents on the assumption that they are not genuine. 268. The Commission observes that the practice of sweeps and the policy of repatriations are not used in the case of all undocumented immigrants or all persons within Dominican territory unlawfully; 246 Human Rights Committee, Rosalind Williams Lecraft v. Spain. Views of July 27, 2009, Communication No. 1493/2006, paragraph 7.2. 247 Human Rights Committee, Rosalind Williams Lecraft v. Spain. Views of July 27, 2009, Communication No. 1493/2006, paragraph 8. 248 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General recommendation XXXI on the prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system. A/60/18, 2005, paragraph 20. 249 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations: Spain. CERD/C/ESP/CO/18-2, March 10, 2011, paragraph 11. 78th session,