Haitian territory was already “full of people” (supra para. 223). Even though these facts, per se, do not prove a collective expulsion of persons, they reinforce the belief that the facts relating to the victims were inserted in procedures involving collective deprivation of liberty that were not supported by the prior assessment of the situation of each person who was deprived of liberty. 384. Consequently, the Court concludes that the expulsions of Lilia Jean Pierre, Janise Midi, Marlene Mesidor and Markenson Jean were not carried out on the basis of individual evaluations of the particular circumstances of each of them, for the effects of Article 22(9) of the American Convention, so that their expulsions are considered to be collective expulsions of aliens in violation of this article. B.2.2.2. The expulsions and the alleged violation of the freedom of movement and residence of the Dominican nationals (Articles 22(1) and 22(5)) 385. The Court has indicated that the right to freedom of movement and residence of every person who is lawfully protected by Article 22(1) of the American Convention, “is an essential condition for the free development of the person, and includes, inter alia, the right of those who are lawfully in a State to move about it freely and also to choose their place of residence.” 440 The Court has also indicated that “[t]his right can be violated formally or by restrictions de facto when the State has not established the conditions or provided the means that allow it to be exercised.” 441 386. In addition, Article 22(5) of the American Convention establishes the prohibition to expel a person from the territory of the State of which he is a national, as well as the prohibition to deprive anyone of the right to enter it. In this regard, it should be noted that several international instrument establish the prohibition to expel nationals. 442 Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has affirmed that it is possible to speak about the expulsion of nationals when a person is obliged to abandon the territory of which he is a national, without being able to return, 443 and has found violation of the norm equivalent to Article 22(5) of the American Convention in the European system, Article 3(1) of Protocol 4 to the European Convention, in cases of expulsions of nationals. 444 387. The Court notes that Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Willian Medina Ferreras and the children at the time, Awilda Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina and Luis Ney Medina, were Dominican nationals who had official identity documents at the time of the facts, and has already determined that it was precisely the disregard of these documents that violated their right to nationality (supra para. 276). In addition, the children, Victoria Jean, Natalie 440 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 115, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 169. 441 Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, paras. 119 and 120, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 220. 442 Protocol 4 to the European Convention, Article 3(1), which states that “[n]o one shall be expelled, by means either of an individual or of a collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national”; Arab Charter on Human Rights Carta, Article 27(b), which indicates that “[n]o one may be exiled from his country or prohibited from returning thereto,” and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12(4): “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.” Cf. In her expert opinion provided by affidavit, Julia Harrington mentioned Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 22(5) of the American Convention, and Article 3 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention (expert opinion of Julia Harrington provided by affidavit). 443 ECHR, Case of A.B. v. Poland. Application no. 33878/96. Decision on admissibility, third section, 13 March 2003, para. 4. 444 ECHR, Case of Slivenko v. Latvia. Application no. 48321/99. Judgment of 9 October 2003, para. 120. 124