victims, to be considered as victims in their own right and as beneficiaries of eventual reparations. However, since the next of kin of the survivors were not considered presumed victims by the Commission and were not alleged to be holders or beneficiaries of any right in dispute in the instant case, in application of Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and its case law (supra para. 29), they will not be considered presumed victims in this case. VI PROVEN FACTS A. Context 38. This Court has found that the first major migrations of Haitians to the Dominican Republic took place during the first third of the 20th century, when around 100,000 people moved to that country’s sugar plantations. At first, the Dominican sugar mills were controlled by private companies, and then most of them passed into the control of the State Sugar Council. Many Haitian migrants came to live permanently in the Dominican Republic; they started families in this country, and now live with their children and grandchildren (second and third generation Dominicans of Haitian origin), who were born and live in the Dominican Republic.44 39. According to different estimates, between 900,000 and 1.2 million Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin live in the Dominican Republic.45 The total population of the Dominican Republic is approximately 8.5 million and, according to the Caribbean Migrants Observatory, in 2011, the foreign population registered in the country consisted of 292,737 persons, of whom 247,468 were Haitians and 45,269 of other nationalities.46 The Haitian migration is mainly due to the environmental degradation and poverty in Haiti and the hope of job opportunities and better socio-economic conditions in the Dominican Republic. Nevertheless, many of the Haitians in Dominican Republic suffer from poverty and marginalization resulting from their legal status and lack of opportunities.47 40. In the instant case, both the Commission and the representatives argued that the events occurred in a context of discrimination against Haitians in the Dominican Republic. For its part, the State maintained that it cannot be inferred from the facts of the case that discriminatory treatment existed. In this regard, the Court considers that, in order to decide this case, it is not necessary to make a ruling on the alleged context of structural discrimination that might exist in the Dominican Republic towards Haitians or persons of Haitian origin. Nevertheless, in Chapter VII-5, the Court will analyze whether, in this case, there was discrimination owing to the condition as migrants of the presumed victims, in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention. B. Facts of the case 44 Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 109.1. 45 Cf. National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, UN Doc A/HRC/WG.6/6/DOM/1, 27 August 2009 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VI, folio 3319). 46 Cf. Informe sobre la cuestión de la migración internacional en la República Dominicana para el año 2011. Caribbean Migrants Observatory, April 2012. Available at: http://www.obmica.org/noticias/resena/b896d7_ Informe_Anual_Obmica_2011.pdf (last consulted on October 20, 2012). 47 Cf. Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, supra, paras. 109.2 and 109.3. See also, Unwelcome Guests: A Study of expulsions of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Descent from the Dominican Republic to Haiti. International Human Rights Law Clinic, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, 2002 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VI, folio 3500). 14