393. In this case, it is not necessary for the Court to rule on the conformity of the said domestic norms with the State’s international obligations. However, it is sufficient to note that, specifically with regard to the expulsions that are the subject of this case, the Dominican Republic has not presented any evidence that it applied the procedure established in the said domestic norms, or took any other measures to ensure to the victims the basic guarantees of due process in order to comply with its obligations under international standards and the American Convention, 447 and this is quite apart from the prohibition to expel nationals established in Article 22(5) of the Convention. 394. Based on the above, the Court finds that the expulsion of the said persons did not respect the relevant international standards, or the procedures established in domestic law (supra paras. 356 to 358 and 391). Consequently, the victims were not granted the basic guarantees that corresponded to them as persons subject to expulsion or deportation, and this violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to noncompliance with the obligation to respect rights established in Article 1(1), to the detriment of Willian Medina Ferreras, Lilia Jean Pierre, Luis Ney Medina, Awilda Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina (deceased), Jeanty Fils-Aimé (deceased), Janise Midi, Diane FilsAimé, Antonio Fils-Aimé, Endry Fils-Aimé, Victor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, Markenson Jean, Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean (deceased), Natalie Jean, Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Bersson Gelin, and also, in relation to the rights of the child, protected by Article 19 of the Convention, with regard to those victims who were children at the time of the expulsion. B.2.2.4. The existence of an effective remedy to contest the detention and expulsion (Article 25(1)) 395. The Court recalls that the State had reiterated that, at the time of the facts, three domestic remedies existed under domestic law, the application for amparo, the habeas corpus (Law No. 5353 of Habeas Corpus of October 22, 1914), and the remedies of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (Law No. 1494 of August 9, 1947) (supra paras. 182 to 185, 191 and 341), and had indicated that the presumed victims had the “real and effective opportunity” to file these remedies, which would have allowed them to question the lawfulness of their detention and the decision of the Dominican authorities to deport or expel them (supra para. 341). 396. The sudden deprivations of liberty and expulsions of the victims were carried out in less than 48 hours without prior notice. Consequently, in this case, it is not necessary for the Court to examine whether, in general terms, the remedies indicated by the State might be appropriate and effective in similar circumstances to those experienced by the presumed victims. Indeed, it is sufficient to note that, in view of the particular circumstances of this case, specifically the way in which the expulsions were implemented, the presumed victims were unable to file the remedies mentioned by the Dominican Republic, and no effective proceedings were available to them. 447 To the contrary, the Court notes that the facts and evidence provided reveal that none of the said presumed victims were the subject of a complete investigation of their particular individual circumstances based on well-founded indications of a possible infringement of the Immigration Law. In addition, no arrest warrant was issued for any of them, and no formal proceedings were instituted to grant the presumed victims the possibility of being heard and contesting the decision to expel them and defending themselves from any charges against them. No final decision on deportation was taken by the Secretary of State for Internal Affairs and Police and communicated to the presumed victims, or any other type of official decision ordering the expulsions. Furthermore, the victims were not informed of the reasons for their expulsion or the specific charges against them, or of possible judicial remedies to contest the decision to expel them, and they were not provided with legal assistance. In addition, in the case of the presumed victims of Haitian nationality, Lilia Jean Pierre, Janise Midi, Marlene Mesidor and Markenson Jean, they were not provided with consular assistance, and did not receive a copy of their repatriation order (which did not exist) and the Haitian diplomatic or consular authorities were not informed of their expulsion. 126