Jean and Miguel Jean, as well as Victor Jean were born in the Dominican Republic, but, at the time of the events, did not have official identity documents. With regard to these individuals, the Court has also determined that the absence of this documentation was related to a violation of the right to nationality (supra para. 301). Therefore, all these persons must be considered Dominican nationals for the purposes of the application of Article 22 of the Convention. 388. The State asserted that it had never repatriated a Dominican national who could prove his nationality. However, the evidence provided by the State does not prove that it took measures to identify and verify formally the nationality of the said presumed victims. 389. The Court considers that, although some of the presumed victims could, in fact, return to Dominican territory, 445 owing to the way in which the events occurred (supra paras. 221 and 222), the destruction or disregard of the documents of the Dominican nationals who did have documentation, as well as the expulsion of Dominicans who lacked official documentation, prevented the victims from being able to return to Dominican territory lawfully, and to move around and reside freely and lawfully in the Dominican Republic. Consequently, the Court considers that the State violated the right to enter the country of which they are nationals and to move around and live in it recognized in Articles 22(5) and 22(1) of the American Convention, in relation to failure to comply with the obligation to respect rights established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Willian Medina Ferreras, Luis Ney Medina, Awilda Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina (deceased), Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Victor Jean, Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean (deceased) and Natalie Jean. B.2.2.3. Respect for the basic procedural guarantees (Article 8(1)) 390. The Court notes that, in proceedings that may result in expulsion or deportation, respect for the right to judicial guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention is relevant, and includes the observance of a series of basic guarantees of due process (supra paras. 356 to 358). 391. The Court also recalls that the immigration norms in force at the time of the facts of this case were Immigration Law No. 95 of April 14, 1939, Law No. 4658 of March 24, 1957, and the Immigration Regulations No. 279 of May 12, 1939, which established a series of procedures for the expulsion or deportation process (supra paras. 186 to 189). 392. In addition, at the time of the facts, the procedures for the repatriation of Haitian immigrants were regulated by the “Memorandum of Understanding on Repatriation Mechanisms” signed by the Dominican Republic and the Republic of Haiti on […] December 2, 1999.” 446 This agreement called for the Dominican authorities: (i) to recognize and respect the human rights of those repatriated; (ii) not to retain the personal documents of those repatriated; (iii) to provide each person repatriated with a copy of the individual form containing the repatriation order, and (iv) to provide, with reasonable advance notice, the list of individuals in the process of being repatriated to the Haitian diplomatic or consular authorities accredited in Dominican territory, so that they could exercise their function of consular assistance (supra para. 190). 445 According to the facts, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, and the Jean family returned to the Dominican Republic permanently in 2002. Furthermore, some members of the Medina family made several trips to the Dominican Republic for medical reasons related to the accident suffered by Awilda Medina (supra para. 203). 446 The Court also noted this in its judgment in the case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 167 and footnote 234. 125