7 and expelled from the country, and the seven minor children of Mr. Fils-Aime, whose birth certifies were denied. 35. As for the rights to judicial guarantees and juridical protection, the petitioners’ contention was that although due process must always be guaranteed in deportation proceedings, during the expulsions in the instant case the alleged victims were denied their right to a hearing to prove their legal status or establish how long they had resided in the Dominican Republic. They were also allegedly denied an effective judicial remedy either to challenge the Dominican authorities’ decision to expel them or to assert the illegality of their detention. 36. According to the petitioners, the alleged victims were denied the guarantees of due process inasmuch as: i) they were not granted the right to either an initial hearing or a second hearing, as required under Regulation No. 279; ii) they were not brought before a competent authority as the law requires; iii) they were not permitted to introduce evidence or make arguments against their deportation; iv) they had no attorney or any legal representation whatever; v) they were not given the opportunity to have their case reviewed by a court authority a second time or on appeal; vi) no authority issued a legal decision stating the grounds for the expulsions, and vii) no consideration was given to the children’s condition as minors, the separation of family members, or the loss of personal effects and family belongings. 37. As for the right to property, the petitioners claimed that the alleged victims’ expulsion would have predictable and inevitable consequences: depriving them of the use and enjoyment of their homes, land, salaries, assets, clothing, food, furnishings and livestock, which the petitioners alleged was a violation of the right to property protected under Article 21 of the Convention. B. The State 38. The State reasserted that repatriation of aliens who are in Dominican territory unlawfully is its non-renounceable and non-negotiable right, as it is one of the fundamental principles of its sovereignty and does not violate any treaty or convention to which the Dominican State is party. It denied that it was engaging in collective repatriations. 39. The State maintained that the Dominican Republic has become the sole destination of a massive influx of Haitian migrants, as the United States manages to keep the Windward Channel under systematic and effective surveillance, making it virtually impossible for Haitian emigrees to reach the southern Florida coastline. However, it also observed that although the State is compelled to maintain a steady pace of repatriation given the extraordinary influx of immigrants it receives, this ought not to be confused with repatriations conducted on a “massive” scale, i.e., large-scale, indiscriminate expulsions. It also denied the facts alleged and asserted that one of the basic conditions necessary to ease the extraordinary migratory pressure from Haiti to the Dominican Republic is that the international community provide tangible cooperation for Haiti’s development rather than mere rhetoric. 40. It observed that the Dominican Republic had a legally prescribed repatriation procedure, implemented by the Office of the Director General of Immigration. That procedure guaranteed due process to persons facing repatriation. It also guaranteed case-by-case treatment of the repatriation procedure, which consisted of three phases: detention of the alien, an investigation of the alien and a fair hearing, and final confirmation. According to the State, the second and third phases were conducted by immigration personnel trained by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), some of whom were conversant in the creole dialect that Haitian persons most commonly speak. It added that a person undergoing a repatriation process was permitted the following: i) to present any documentation he/she had in his/her possession; ii) to communicate with family members, and iii) to get the assistance necessary to gather together his/her personal effects. It added that repatriated persons were seated in buses specifically leased for that purpose, and were accommodated and fed until the process was complete. It concluded that it was therefore impossible for any Haitian citizen who was in the country legally to be repatriated, since any person who was able to show documentary proof that his/her status was legal “was simply not repatriated.”