61 statement or to challenge the evidence against them, nor was their situation brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Police so that the latter might issue the necessary deportation order. Furthermore, contrary to the terms of the State’s Protocol of Understanding with Haiti, the victims were expelled at night; in some cases the expulsion meant separation of nuclear families; no specific measures were taken to ensure that the victims had possession of their personal effects; the identification papers of some victims were destroyed, they were not given a copy of the individual form containing the repatriation order nor were the Haitian diplomatic and consular authorities in the Dominican Republic given advance notice. 289. In this case, the Commission takes as fact that the victims had neither adequate time or means of defense to prove their nationality or their legal status in the Dominican Republic; they were not provided with legal assistance and not given the opportunity to challenge the deportation decision; there was no order from a competent, independent and impartial authority deciding the victims’ deportation. 290. The Commission has no information indicating what specific recourse the victims could have availed themselves of to protect their rights. Furthermore, there were significant obstacles to access to justice in this case: geography made access to a competent judge or court difficult, and there was no way to prove one’s identity or the violations being alleged. 291. In this regard, Mr. Medina Ferreras maintained that even though he and his sons were born in the Dominican Republic, he was unable to demand his rights in the courts of the Dominican Republic as he would be mistreated and the Dominican officials routinely discriminate against persons of 265 Haitian descent. For his part, Mr. Fils Aime said he had no chance of demanding his rights in a court of law in the Dominican Republic, because Dominican officials treated him and other Dominico-Haitians like 266 animals. Similarly, Mr. Gelin stated that he could not assert his rights in a Dominican court because 267 the officials abused Haitians and persons of Haitian descent. Mrs. Alezy said that “she ha[d] no chance of claiming her rights in a Dominican court, because the Dominican Republic does not recognize the 268 rights of persons born in Haiti; she cannot demand her rights in a Haitian court either.” 292. Expelling the victims meant that they were ousted from the territory of the Dominican Republic and left in the territory of another country; no public record was made of their expulsion. The Commission concluded supra that as a consequence of the expulsions, the victims were left with no means to prove either their physical or legal existence. With no way to prove their identity and legal status, the victims were prevented from returning legally to Dominican territory; they had no way to prove their situation to the representation of the Dominican Republic in Haiti. Furthermore, the victims had no way to seek judicial protection from the Haitian courts. Given the circumstances, the Commission finds that the victims did not have a access to a simple and rapid recourse to challenge the violation of their human rights and observes that State did not initiate a serious, impartial and effective investigation to establish the facts and to determine the possible perpetrators. 293. Given the foregoing, the Commission considers that the State violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, recognized in articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, 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 Fils-Aime, Endry Fils-Aime, Andren Fils-Aime, Juan Fils265 Annex 15. Sworn statement given by William Medina Ferreras in the presence of the Human Rights Clinic of Columbia University School of Law on April 1, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ observations of January 30, 2002 266 Anexo 19. Declaración jurada de Jeanty Fils-Aime ante la Clínica de Derechos Humanos de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Columbia de 1 de abril de 2000. Anexo a las observaciones de los representantes de 30 de enero de 2002 267 Annex 24. Statement given by Berson Gelin on April 1, 2000, in the presence of the Human Rights Clinic of Columbia University School of Law. Attachment to the petitioners’ observations of January 30, 2002 268 Annex 35. Sworn statement given by Andrea Alezi in the presence of the Human Rights Clinic of Columbia University School of Law on April 1, 2000. Attachment to the information submitted by the petitioners on January 30, 2002.