case law and, in particular, the lack of evidence in the case file, the State concluded that it had not violated the right to personal integrity with regard to the presumed victims. 481 B) Considerations of the Court 438. In the case sub judice, the Court considers it desirable to point out that it has already established the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the rights to nationality, recognition of juridical personality, a name, personal liberty, judicial guarantees and protection, freedom of movement and residence, and protection of the family with regard to different victims and, in the case of the children, the rights of the child, in relation to the situation of vulnerability of the victims because, according to the facts of this case, their situation is inserted in a context of collective expulsions or deportations. Some of the victims were expelled from the Dominican Republic, even though they had Dominican nationality and had their birth certificate and/or identity card, which were disregarded or destroyed by the State authorities. In other cases, the State had not granted the victims the corresponding documentation, even though they were born in the Dominican Republic, and had faced difficulties trying to obtain it. Consequently, the State did not recognize their nationality, or their juridical personality, or their name, and also, owing to this series of violations, their right to identity. Also, some victims who were Haitian nationals were expelled. Additionally, the victims were detained unlawfully and arbitrarily without knowing the reasons for the deprivation of liberty, and without being brought before a competent authority, and were expelled in less than 48 hours, without the basic guarantees of due process having been observed. Also, in the case of some of the victims, the State failed to comply with its obligation to protect the family, and to safeguard the family from arbitrary interference in its private or family life. The Court notes that most of the arguments of the Commission and the representatives are related to the facts have already been examined. Consequently, the Court finds that, in this case, it is not in order to rule on arguments referring to facts that have already been analyzed in light of other obligations under the Convention. XII RIGHT TO PROPERTY 482 A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 439. The Commission considered that “the victims’ expulsion meant the automatic and de facto loss of all those personal effects that were left behind in Dominican territory, which is an unlawful deprivation of their property for which they received no compensation.” It added that the presumed victims had household furnishings, personal effects, clothing, livestock, savings and cash, or unpaid wages. In addition, it observed that, in deportation cases, the confiscation of personal effects was not permitted under Dominican law and that, despite the domestic laws in force, the presumed victims did not have the opportunity to retrieve their belongings, personal effects, and cash at the time of their expulsion. Consequently, it considered that the State had violated the right to property 481 The State referred, among others, to the following presumed victims: Willian Medina Ferreras, Lilia Jean Pierre, Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina (deceased), Jeanty Fils-Aimé (deceased), Janise Midi, Nen�� Fils-Aimé, Diane Fils-Aimé, Antonio Fils-Aimé, Endry Fils-Aimé, Carolina Fils-Aimé, Bersson Gelin, William Gelin, Antonio Sensión, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Victor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, Markenson Jean, Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean and Natalie Jean. 482 The pertinent part of Article 21 establishes: “1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law.” 139