129. In addition, Immigration Regulations No. 279 of May 12, 1939186 regulated the deportation procedure as follows: Immigration inspectors and officials acting as such shall conduct a full investigation of any alien, whenever truthful reports exist or there is any reason to believe that the alien is in the Republic in violation of the Immigration Act. If the investigation establishes that the alien should be deported, the Immigration Inspector shall request an arrest warrant from the General Immigration Board. The request for a warrant must state the facts and show the specific reasons why the alien should be deported. If the arrest warrant is issued, the Immigration Inspector shall call the alien to be heard regarding the charges stated in the arrest warrant. The information relating to the alien shall be entered on the G-1 form when he is heard, unless this information has been recorded previously. […] If the alien does not accept any of the charges stated in the arrest warrant, evidence will be sought to substantiate the charges; then the alien will be summoned again and given another opportunity to state his case, as well as to introduce evidence opposing his or her deportation. […] 130. Nevertheless, as previously determined (supra paras. 54 and 55), after the truck overturned, 11 people were detained and taken to the Border Intelligence Operations Base (DOIF) in Montecristi. Some hours later they were taken to the Dejabón military barracks, where soldiers threatened to take them to a prison, and told them that they could work in the fields or pay money to the agents to be returned to Haiti. Based on this threat, the Court found it proved (supra para. 55) that the detainees collected money, gave it to the soldiers and, on the afternoon of June 18, 2000, were transferred to the town of Ouanaminthe (Wanaminthe), in Haiti. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that the said deprivation of liberty was not formally recorded or justified at any time. In addition, the transfer of the migrants from the Montecristi DOIF to the Dejabón military barracks was not authorized by a written or founded order and, at no time, were the detainees brought before a competent authority, in this case the Immigration Inspector or the Director General, as required by the Constitution in force (supra para. 127). 131. The Court has also upheld the need to guarantee certain minimum standards that must be met in police detention centers;187 in particular, a record of detainees must be kept that permits monitoring the legality of the detentions.188 In relation to the facts of this case, the Court notes that the authorities did not respect the obligation to record the information on the foreign detainees so that they could be deported. Thus, the absence of a record of this information on the “G-1 form” signified a disregard of the provisions of Immigration Regulations No. 279 (supra para. 129). Based on the foregoing, the State violated Article 7(2) of the American Convention to the detriment of Rose-Marie Petit-Homme, Joseph Pierre, Renaud Tima, Selafoi Pierre, Sylvie Felizor, Roland Israel, and Rose Marie Dol (hereinafter “the detained victims”). order the arrest or expulsion of aliens whose activities, in his opinion, have been or could be prejudicial to public order and good practice. 184 Article 10.a. The following types of aliens shall be excluded from entry into the Republic: (1) Anarchists or persons who promote doctrines or activities to overthrow the Dominican Government or contrary to law and order […]. 185 Article 13. The following aliens shall be arrested and deported […]: (3) Any alien who joins or associates with activities tending to overthrow the Dominican Government or who illegally traffics in drugs, or joins in other activities contrary to public order and safety. 186 Immigration regulation No. 279 of May 12, 1939, published in Gaceta Oficial No. 5313 (file of attachments to the representatives’ final written arguments, tome VIII, folio 4351). 187 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 132. 188 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 203, and Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations Judgment of September 3, 2012 Series C No. 249, para 151. 39