43 has also taken as fact that the victims were unable to contact their immediate family members or other relatives to advise them of their arrest and expulsion. Mr. Tide Méndez stated that as a result of his expulsion, he was separated from his family and feared that state agents would expel him again, especially because of the petition filed with the inter-American system of human rights; he added that the fear had very severe psychological effects. 205. The Commission notes, too, that during their detention, the victims were subjected to 183 verbal abuse by the State agents, through comments such as “Are there anymore blacks in there?” or 184 “Go back to your country, bastard!” Such treatment, combined with the uncertainty regarding the reasons for the arrest, the fact that they were not brought before a competent authority and their ultimate expulsion had a profound impact on the victims’ mental integrity. 206. As for the petitioners’ allegations that the victims were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment as a consequence of the confiscation, withholding and destruction of their identification documents, the Commission takes the following as fact: i) that Mr. Benito Tide Méndez showed his Dominican birth certificate, only to have it destroyed by one of the immigration officers; ii) that a soldier destroyed the photocopies of the Dominican identification document and birth certificate of Mr. William Medina Ferreras when he was taken into custody; iii) that the safe-conducts issued to Mr. Jeanty Fils-Aime and Mr. Berson Gelin pursuant to the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court were destroyed in 2005 when they were shown to Dominican officials. 207. The arbitrary and deliberate destruction of identification documents by State authorities is part of a broader context of discrimination to which Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent are subjected in the Dominican Republic. In some cases, identification documents are destroyed in order to strip an individual of his legal status or legal capacity; in other cases, the purpose is to break the bond of nationality that links the individual with the State, in the mistaken belief that if he is undocumented he becomes, de facto, deportable. The fact that the confiscation or destruction of identification documents has consequences like those just described inevitably leads to mental or psychological suffering which, given the situation of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent cannot be justified and inflicts terrible humiliation by refusing to recognize them as subjects of laws. 208. The Commission therefore considers that the Dominican authorities’ destruction of the identification documents of Benito Tide Méndez, William Medina Ferreras, and the safe-conducts of Jeanty Fils-Aime and Berson Gelin, constitutes inhumane and degrading treatment. 209. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the State violated the right to humane treatment and the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment recognized in Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligation to respect rights without discrimination, set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Benito Tide Méndez, William Medina Ferreras, Lilia Jean Pierre, Wilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Jeanty Fils-Aime, Janise Midi, Nene Fils-Aime, Diane Fils-Aime, Antonio Fils-Aime, Marilobi Fils-Aime, Endry Fils-Aime, Juan Fils-Aime, Andren Fils-Aime, Berson Gelin, Ana Virginia Nolasco, Ana Lidia Sensión, Reyita Antonia Sensión, Andrea Alezy, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Víctor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, McKenson Jean, Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean, Nathalie Jean. 2. Analysis regarding the victims’ next of kin 183 Annex 12. Sworn statement given by William Medina Ferreras in the presence of the Human Rights Clinic of Columbia University School of Law on April 1, 2000. Annex AA of the observations on the merits that the petitioners presented on April 16, 2009. 184 Annex 16. Sworn statement given by Janise Midi in the presence of the Human Rights Clinic of Columbia University School of Law on January 13, 2001. Attachment to the representatives’ observations of January 30, 2002. Annex AJ of the observations on the merits that the petitioners presented on April 16, 2009.