233. Regarding the rights of migrants, the Court recalls that it is permissible for a State to grant different treatment to documented migrants in relation to undocumented migrants, or between migrants and nationals, provided that this treatment is reasonable, objective and 290 proportionate and does not harm human rights. An example of this could be to establish control mechanisms for the entry and exit of migrants, but always ensuring due process and 291 human dignity, irrespective of their migratory condition. 234. Thus, the Court recalls that international human rights law not only prohibits policies and practices that are deliberately discriminatory, but also those whose impact could be discriminatory with regard to certain categories of individuals, even when it is not possible to prove a discriminatory intention.292 235. The Court considers that a violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination also occurs in situations and cases of indirect discrimination reflected in the disproportionate impact of norms, actions, policies or other measures that, even when their formulation is or appears to be neutral, or their scope is general and undifferentiated, have negative effects on certain vulnerable groups.293 This concept of indirect discrimination has also been recognized, among other bodies, by the European Court of Human Rights, which has established that, when a general policy or measure has a disproportionately prejudicial effect on a particular group it may be considered discriminatory even if it was not specifically directed at this group.294 Law, University of California at Berkeley, 2002 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VI, folios 3487, 3498, 3499, 3500, 3513, 3514, 3520 to 3524, 3526, 3542); Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Githu Muigai. United Nations Human Rights Council. UN Doc. A/HCR/14/43/Add.1., 21 May 2010, para. 57 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome IV, folio 3371); United Nations Human Rights Committee. Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant. CCPR/CI79/Add.18., 5 May 1993, para. 5 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome I, folio 1436); United Nations Human Rights Committee. Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant. CCPR/C0I71/DOM. 26 April 2001, para. 16 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome I, folio 1442); Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Report on the situation of human rights in the Dominican Republic, OEA/Ser.LN/I1.104, Doc. 49 rev. 1, October 7, 1999, para. 328 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome I, folios 1347 and 1348); Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Report on the follow-up to the IACHR recommendations on the situation of human rights in the Dominican Republic, 2001, para. 88, 89 and 130 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome I, folio 1421, 1423 and 1432), and Human Rights Watch, "Illegal People: Haitians and Dominico-Haitians in the Dominican Republic," vol. 14, no 1(B), April 2002 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome I, folio 1524 a 1530). See also article published on January 27, 2001, in the online newspaper Info Haïti, entitled “Polémique entre la hiérarchie militaire et le chancelier dominicain sur la question des illégaux haïtiens” (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome V, folio 3139); article published on January 21, 2001, in the online newspaper Info Haïti, entitled “Le chancelier dominicain promet des sanctions sévères contre ceux qui commettent des excès contre les illégaux haïtiens” (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome V, folio 3145), and article published on January 19, 2001, in the online newspaper Info Haïti, entitled “Une patrouille de l’armée dominicaine a mitraillé un nouveau camion transportant des sans papiers haïtiens” (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome V, folio 3147). 290 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 119 and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 248. 291 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 119. 292 Cf. ECHR. D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic, supra, paras. 179, 184 and 194.; ECHR. Hugh Jordan v. United Kingdom, application No. 24746/94, 4 May 2011, para. 154, and ECHR. Hoogendijk v. The Netherlands, application No. 58641/00, 6 January, 2005 (First Section0. See also: Council of Europe Directive 2008/0140 on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Brussels, 2 July 2008, pp. 7 and 8, and Directive 2000/43/CE on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. Brussels, 29 June 2000, para. 13. 293 Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 20, Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, para 10(b). 294 Cf. ECHR. Hoogendijk v. The Netherlands No. 58641/00. First Section. Judgment of 6 January 2005, p. 18. 63