57 instead they are specifically targeted at Haitians, persons of Haitian descent or persons regarded “as Haitians”. In effect, according to the facts established in this case, the phenotypic features and skin color are determining factors when selecting the persons who will be detained and ultimately expelled. 269. In the present case, the methods used to conduct the sweeps or immigration control operations in which Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin were detained and subsequently expelled by the Dominican authorities reveal a pattern of discrimination practiced by State institutions against these people. 270. To understand why the human rights of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin are being systematically violated in the Dominican Republic, one has to consider the link between the detention and expulsion of these persons and the discrimination that perpetuates these practices. The selective detentions and collective and summary expulsions of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic can be attributed to the discriminatory attitudes and use of racial profiles by Dominican state officials. 271. The Commission must again make the point that “race” is a “suspect category” of distinction and therefore subject to stricter scrutiny. Even so, the State makes a general argument to the effect that “there is no possibility that a Haitian citizen who is in the country lawfully would be repatriated.” However, it did not advance any justification for the discriminatory impact of its immigration policy. 272. The Commission notes that if proper procedure is followed, before deciding to repatriate an alien the authorities must determine what his immigration status was when he was living in the territory of the State. Such a procedure invariably necessitates an in-depth examination of each alien’s particular situation in order to establish his identity, nationality, length of residency, family and social ties in the country and other information. For example, Article 11(d) of Immigration Law No. 95 provided that deportation would not be effected “unless the arrest in the deportation process was made within five years from the date on which the deportation case was opened.” 273. While the State denied the allegations pertaining to collective expulsions, it did not provide any information to show that it had conducted a detailed analysis of each victim’s particular circumstance. The above reasoning is confirmed by the fact that these operations netted Dominican nationals and aliens, documented and undocumented alike; the procedure was the same irrespective of who the victims were. 274. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to freedom of movement and residence, the prohibition of expulsion of nationals, and the prohibition of collective expulsions of aliens recognized in Article 22.1, 22.5, and 22.9 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the principle of equality and non-discrimination and the obligation to respect rights without discrimination, established in articles 24 and 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Benito Tide Méndez, William Medina Ferreras, Lilia Jean Pierre, Wilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Jeanty Fils-Aime, Janise Midi, Nene Fils-Aime, Diane Fils-Aime, Antonio Fils-Aime, Marilobi FilsAime, Endry Fils-Aime, Andren Fils-Aime, Juan Fils-Aime, Berson Gelin, Ana Virginia Nolaco, Ana Lidia Sensión, Reyita Antonia Sensión, Andrea Alezy, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Víctor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, McKenson Jean, Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean and Nathalie Jean. G. Right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection (articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention) in relation to the obligation to respect rights without discrimination (Article 1(1) of the American Convention) 275. The relevant paragraphs of Article 8 of the American Convention provide the following: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation