114. The Court observes that the corpses have not been repatriated yet or returned to their next of kin. In response to the Court's questions during the public hearing, the representatives forwarded information on the burial records of the deceased victims in the Guaurabo II Cemetery on June 18, 2000.169 The State did not provide current information on the situation of the corpses and actions for their proper return.170 115. In this regard, the Court has established that the right of the victims’ next of kin to know the whereabouts of the remains of their loved ones constitutes, in addition to a requirement of the right to know the truth, a measure of reparation and, therefore, gives rise to the corresponding obligation of the State to satisfy these fair expectations. The return of the bodies of those who died in the incident was of paramount importance to their next of kin, to permit their burial in keeping with their beliefs and to close the mourning process they experienced owing to the events.171 116. Specifically, international standards require that the return of the remains should take place when the victim has been clearly identified; in other words, once a positive identification has been made. In this regard, the Minnesota Protocol establishes that “the body must be identified by reliable witnesses and other objective methods.”172 117. This Court considers that the treatment given to the bodies of those deceased following the incident, by burial in mass graves without being clearly identified or returned to their families, reveals a demeaning treatment in violation of Article 5(1) in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the deceased and their next of kin. VII-2 RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT 118. In this chapter, the Court will summarize the arguments of the parties and the InterAmerican Commission on the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty of 11 Haitian migrants in Dominican Republic. To do so, the Court will consider the facts from the time the Haitian migrants were deprived of liberty until they were transferred to Haiti, some hours later (supra paras. 54 and 55). Subsequently, the Court will examine the alleged collective expulsion of the Haitian migrants in light of the guarantees of due process, in relation to both the condition of migrants of the presumed victims, and the deportation and expulsion procedures.173 169 Cf. Burial certificate. Fritz Alce, Roselene Therméus, Ilfaudia Dorzema, Nadege Dorzema and Jacqueline Maxime, supra, folios 4738 to 4755. 170 Among the annexes to its final written arguments, the State attached the statement of the Director of Specialized Health Services of the Ministry of Public Health, which indicated that: “[…] during the investigation, several documents were obtained that relieve the José María Cabral and Báez University Hospital of responsibility, but which implicate the National Forensic Science Institute, which corresponds to the Attorney General’s office, because, on June 18, 2000, it registered a total of seven persons, including the persons claimed in the report, but the corresponding files were damaged by the flooding suffered by the province of Santiago de los Caballeros and, in addition, it does not know the final fate of the corpses” (file of annexes to the State’s final arguments, tome VII, folio 4107.22.) 171 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 245, and Case of Pacheco Teruel v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 73. 172 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 318 and Case of Pacheco Teruel v. Honduras, supra, para. 73. 173 In addition, the Commission alleged the violation of the guarantees under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in relation to the alleged arbitrary detention and expulsion. The representatives also alleged the violation of the said articles because “[t]he rapidity of the expulsion […] reveals the factual impossibility of filing an application for habeas corpus, a request for refugee status, asylum or any other measure of protection […]; in other 35