69 always respecting the premises contained in Article 21 of the Convention and the general principles of 302 international law. 328. The Court has also held that not every cause for restricting or denying the right to property must be specified by law; instead the law and its enforcement must be respectful of the essential content of the right to property. This right presupposes that any curtailment must be the exception. From the principle of exception it follows that any restrictive measure must be necessary to achieve a legitimate 303 objective in a democratic society, consistent with the object and purpose of the American 304 Convention. 329. The Commission notes that the victims in the present case were documented and undocumented Dominican citizens and documented and undocumented aliens. Whatever their status, all the victims had lived in the Dominican Republic for several years and it was their principal place of residence and business. Specifically, the victims had household furnishings, personal effects, clothing, livestock, cash savings or unpaid wages. 330. The Commission observes that the confiscation of personal effects in deportation cases was not permitted under Dominican law and that despite the domestic laws in force, the victims did not have an opportunity to retrieve their personal effects and cash at the time of their expulsion. 331. Given these circumstances, the Commission finds that the victims’ expulsion meant the automatic and de facto loss of all those effects that were left behind in Dominican territory, which is an unlawful deprivation of their property for which they received no compensation. 332. The Commission therefore considers that the State violated the right to property protected under Article 21 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect rights without discrimination, set forth in 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 FilsAime, Janise Midi, Nene Fils-Aime, Diane Fils-Aime, Antonio Fils-Aime, Marilobi Fils-Aime, Endry FilsAime, 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. VI. CONCLUSIONS 333. Based on the preceding examination, the Commission concludes that the State of the Dominican Republic is responsible for violation of the rights to juridical personality, humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial, protection of the family, rights of the child, nationality, property, freedom of movement and residence, equality and nondiscrimination, and juridical protection, recognized in articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22.1, 22.5, 22.9, 24 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 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. The Commission also concludes that the State violated the right to humane treatment, protected under Article 5 of the American Convention, and the right to protection of the family, recognized in Article 302 I/A Court H.R., Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, paragraph 60. 303 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 170, paragraph 93. See also, The Term “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6. paragraph 28. 304 I/A Court H.R., Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, paragraph 65.