XI RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY 476 A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 431. The Commission alleged that the presumed victims were detained in an unlawful and arbitrary manner and that, while in custody, they received no water, food, or medical attention; in addition, they were unable to communicate with anyone, and could not contact their family members to advise them of their arrest and expulsion. It added that, during their detention, they were subjected to verbal abuse by the State agents. The foregoing, added to the uncertainty about the reasons for the detention, the failure to bring them before a competent authority, and the subsequent expulsion had a profound impact on the mental integrity of the presumed victims. According to the Commission, these circumstances led to “mental or psychological suffering which, given the particular situation [of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent], is unjustifiable.” In addition, it indicated that, in some cases, the destruction of identity documents was aimed at depriving the holders of their juridical personality, while, in other cases, it was designed to break the legal bond of nationality that linked them to the State, in an attempt to make these persons deportable. The Commission considered that the arbitrary and deliberate destruction of identity documents 477 by the State authorities was inserted in the context of discrimination of which Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic are victims, and constituted degrading treatment. 432. It also argued that the next of kin who remained in the Dominican Republic suffered from not knowing the whereabouts of their expelled family members, and that the effect of the expulsion of the presumed victims was to sever family ties and break up the family unit, and adversely affected the normal development of family relations, even for the new members of the family. 433. Based on the above, the Commission considered that the State had violated the right to personal integrity and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment recognized in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1), to the detriment of the presumed victims, 478 and also that it had violated the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1), to the detriment of the next of kin of the presumed victims. 479 434. For their part, the representatives argued that many of the presumed victims were taken from their homes or arrested while they were out and about, and were not informed of the reasons for their detention, or allowed to communicate with their family members, or with a lawyer to obtain assistance. They indicated that the presumed victims were obliged to get into vehicles transporting other people with the same physical 476 The pertinent part of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention stipulates: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” 477 Gelin. The identity documents of Willian Medina Ferreras, and the safe-conducts of Jeanty Fils-Aimé and Bersson 478 The presumed victims regarding whom the violations were alleged include: Willian Medina Ferreras, Lilia Jean Pierre, Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Jeanty Fils-Aimé, Janise Midi, Diana FilsAimé, Antonio Fils-Aimé, Endry Fils-Aimé, Bersson Gelin, Ana Virginia Nolasco, Ana Lidia Sensión, Reyita Antonia Sensión, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Victor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, Markenson Jean, Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean, and Natalie Jean. 479 Including: William Gelin and Antonio Sensión. 137