48 Inter-American Court has maintained that the lack of due diligence that leads to impunity reproduces the violence that it intends to attack, without prejudice to the fact that it alone constitutes discrimination 226 regarding access to justice and respect of the right to guarantees. 203. The IACHR has accepted as fact that during the time when the facts in the instant case took place, a context of racism, racial discrimination and “anti-Haitian” practices existed in the Dominican Republic. In that setting, the Haitian immigrants were “victims of all kinds of abuse by the authorities, from 227 assassinations to mistreatment, massive expulsions, and deplorable living conditions. With regard to the extra-legal executions carried out by State agents, it has been proven that the agents crossed the line in discharging their duties and abused their power in actions that resulted in the death of the victims, most of them unarmed and defenseless. Furthermore, it has been proven that the State left the incidents go unpunished. Last, in the context of the expulsions of Haitians or persons of Haitian origin, the Commission considered that the evidence proved that these were carried out by Dominican authorities violently and in a rush, without affording them judicial guarantees, without affording them the opportunity to show that they were legal residents in the country, and without providing equal access to effective remedies. 204. The Commission considers that in the instant case there are examples of specific actions that fall within the context mentioned above. Throughout this report, the evidence has proved that near the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the Dominican armed forces used exercise and lethal force against a group of unarmed and defenseless Haitians causing the death of several of them with multiple gunshots and critically injuring several more. Moreover, the Commission takes special note that the military patrol extra-legally executed, at least, two defenseless Haitian nationals by shooting each, six times in the back. The IACHR considers that the violence used by the State agents against the Haitian individuals, as well as the lack of punishment of those responsible for the incidents, are another example of the pattern of discrimination. Likewise, the IACHR has proven that the Haitian survivors were detained and expelled from the country without being afforded minimum judicial guarantees. 205. The Commission would also like to point out that there is no evident in the case file to indicate that the authorities ever requested information regarding the national origin or the legal status of the victims. On the contrary, base on the context in which the incidents took place, the Commission considers that it is reasonable to think that the State agents presumed that information based on the race of the persons of Haitian origin. In that regard, the IACHR recalls that, as it has done previously in another case against the Dominican Republic, not only does international human rights law prohibit policies and practices that are deliberately discriminatory, but also those whose impact is discriminatory 228 against a certain category of individuals even if the discriminatory intent cannot be proven. 206. Last, the Commission notes that the State has not refuted the allegations of the petitioners regarding the violation of the right to non-discrimination. 207. The Commission recalls that the Inter-American Court has pointed out that the States must combat discriminatory practices at all levels, especially in public entities and lastly, it must adopt the 229 necessary measures to ensure effective equality before the law for all persons. . Moreover, the Court has stated: […] the obligation to respect and ensure the principle of he right to equal protection and nondiscrimination is irrespective of a person’s migratory status in a State. In other words, States have 226 IA Court H.R., Case González et al (“Cotton Field””) vs. México. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, pars. 400 and 402. Also see European Court of Human Rights, Case Opuz vs. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02 of June 9, par. 191. 227 IACHR. Report on the human Rights situation in the Dominican Republic, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.104, Doc. 49 rev. 1, October 7, 1999, par. 317. Also see Human Rights Watch, “Illegal persons: Haitians and Dominica-Haitians in the Dominican Republic,” vol. 14, no 1(B), April 2002, Petitioners’ document dated May 5, 2009. Annex 27 228 IACHR. Complaint in the Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico vs. Dominican Republic, par. 116. 229 IA Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico vs. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, par. 141.