45 proceeding regarding immigration, the Commission has established that although Article 8 of the Convention “does not specify minimum guarantees in matters relating to the determination of civil, labor, fiscal, or any other type of rights or obligations, the minimum guarantees established in subparagraph 2 of the same article also apply in those areas and, therefore, in those areas, the individual has the right to 206 due process in the same terms as if it were a criminal matter as long as it applies to the proceedings.” . Furthermore, the Inter-American Court has considered that migrants are in a situation of true inequality207 that could affect due process unless special measures are adopted to compensate for their situation of vulnerability. In the instant case, the State has not provided any evidence to establish that the guarantees enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention have been applied. 191. On the other hand, the Commission considers that the incidents that occurred immediately following the pursuit lead to the conclusion that the Dominican State, in addition to having violated the right to personal liberty of Joseph Pierre, Selafoi Pierre, Silvie Thermeus, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josué Maxime, Michel Florantin, Cecilia Petithomme/Estilien, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Timat and Honorio Winique, also violated their right to personal integrity for the fear, it is reasonable to infer, they felt when after having survived the pursuit and the shooting, they were forced to pick up the dead and the critically injured; also, for having been detained by State agents not knowing where they were going; for being taken to two jails without being informed of their rights or what was awaiting them, and for being threatened with forced labor and for not being afforded minimum judicial guarantees. 192. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the Dominican State violated the right to personal liberty, to personal integrity, to judicial guarantees, and to judicial protection established in Articles 7, 5.1 and 5.2, and 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection to Article 1(1) of the same instrument to the detriment of Joseph Pierre, Selafoi Pierre, Silvie Thermeus, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josué Maxime, Cecilia Petithomme/Estilien, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Timat and Honorio Winique. 193. On the other hand, with regard to the injured Joseph Devraine, the IACHR observes that although the petitioners allege that he was included in the group of persons detained, the testimony in the case file states that “he was not in the group of persons sent to Dajabón,” because he was injured and he was taken to the hospital from where “he was able to fle[e].” The evidence in the case file also shows that Francois Michel was also taken to the hospital and, days later, gave testimony under military jurisdiction.208 Based on the foregoing, the IACHR notes that there is not enough information in the case file about what may have happened with both persons after they were taken to the hospital, therefore, the Commission will not address the rights protected in Articles 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention in reference to them. 6. Right to equality before the law and to non discrimination (Articles 24 209 and 1(1)) 194. The American Convention prohibits discrimination of any kind, a concept that includes unjustified distinctions based on race, color, social or national origin, economic status, birth or any other social condition. In that regard, the Commission has stated that “non discrimination, together with equality …continuación 56/06 (admissibility), Case No. 12.562, par. 51 (July 20, 2006), available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2006sp/EEUU8.03sp.htm; IACHR, Loren Laroye Riebe Star, Jorge Alberto Barón Guttlein and Randolfo Izal Elorz vs. Mexico, Report No. 49/99, (merits), Case No. 11.610, par. 46 (April 13, 1999), available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/98span/Fondo/Mexico%2011.610.htm. 206 IA Court H.R., Case Ivcher Bronstein vs. Peru. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par. 103. 207 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC18/03, par.121 (September 17, 2003), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_18_esp.pdf. 208 Medical certificate of June 23, 2000 of Francois Michel, who exhibited “Dx. Open fracture type (III) left tibial region.” State document dated September 20, 2010. Annex. Said person provided testimony in the investigation under military jurisdiction on June (illegible), 2000. State document dated September 20, 2010 Annex. Interrogation of Michel Frances, in preliminary proceedings of the Court Martial of First Instance, July 17, 2000, Petitioners’ document dated May 5, 2009, Annex 12. 209 Article 24. All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.