a suspect reason44 for differentiation because it is explicitly included on the non-exhaustive list contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention (“national origin”). Similarly, the InterAmerican Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance also underscores discrimination based on nationality or migratory status.45 34. The Inter-American Court’s case law includes numerous cases in which a distinction based on nationality, made without suitable, necessary and proportionate justification, has been declared discriminatory. In the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic (2005), for example, the fact that the State impeded the late registration of children of Haitian migrants led the Court to recognize the violation of the duty to provide each individual with equal and effective legal protection, without discrimination based on nationality or non-national status.46 In Vélez Loor v. Panama (2010), the Court also verified a violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination based on nationality when examining the detention of an undocumented migrant47 and reiterated that States may only accord a differentiated treatment between migrants and nationals if that treatment is reasonable, objective and proportionate, and does not harm human rights.48 35. In Nadege Dorzema et al v. Dominican Republic (2012), the Court again referred to discriminatory practices against migrants in Dominican Republic when examining the use of force by Dominican state agents against a group of Haitians, and indicated that police actions based on parameters of nationality and non-nationality constituted discrimination.49 In Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic (2014), the Court assessed the violations committed in the context of mass expulsions of migrants and of violence against families of Haitian origin, and consolidated the case law standards developed previously.50 36. The review of this relevant chain of precedents establishing the State’s duty to guarantee equal treatment to both national and non-nationals reinforces the criterion asserted by Judge Cançado Trindade in his separate opinion to Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, 44 Here, a parallelism is established with the concept of “suspect” or “more sensitive” categories adopted by the European Court when analyzing differentiating criteria adopted in State measures. If the categories are sensitive or suspect, only “very weighty reasons” may make the State’s justification objective and reasonable, thus increasing the burden of proof. The justification provided by that court was “that such groups were historically subject to prejudice with lasting consequences, resulting in their social exclusion.” Cf. ECHR. Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 63, 2011, and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 182. In cases such as ECHR. Andrejeva v. Latvia, the European Court specifically considered nationality as a suspect category. Cf. ECHR. Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 87, 2009. Cf. also ARNARDÓTTIR, O. M. NonDiscrimination Under Article 14 ECHR – The Burden of Proof. Scandinavian Studies in Law, v. 51, p. 13-39, 2007. 45 “Article 1(1). Discrimination shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference, in any area of public or private life, the purpose or effect of which is to nullify or curtail the equal recognition, enjoyment, or exercise of one or more human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the international instruments applicable to the States Parties. Discrimination may be based on nationality; age; sex; sexual orientation; gender identity and expression; language; religion; cultural identity; political opinions or opinions of any kind; social origin; socioeconomic status; educational level; migrant, refugee, repatriate, stateless or internally displaced status; disability; genetic trait; mental or physical health condition, including infectious-contagious condition and debilitating psychological condition; or any other condition.” 46 Cf. Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 140. Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 119; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 248. 47 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 119; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 248. 48 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 233. 49 Cf. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, paras. 264 and 402. 50 9