Last week, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights released its opinion in Case of Dominican and Haitian People Expelled v. the Dominican Republic, where it held that the State’s discrimination, detention, and mass expulsion of individuals of Haitian descent violated the rights to: juridical personality, nationality, a name, personal liberty, privacy, fair trial, judicial protection, equal protection before the law, freedom of movement and residence, rights of the family, rights of the child, and the guarantee of non-discrimination, as set forth in the American Convention on Human Rights. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Dominican and Haitian People Expelled v. the Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 512 (Spanish only).
Credit: IACtHR
The Inter-American Court has previously condemned the Dominican Republic’s treatment of persons of Haitian descent and its counterpart, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, has urged the State to modify its immigration laws and practices to comply with regional human rights standards, including by averting the implementation of a 2013 Constitutional Court judgment that directed authorities to strip possibly thousands of their citizenship. [IACHR Press Release] Now, in a binding judgment, the Inter-American Court has echoed these findings and directed the State to take specific action.
When the case was before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it was referred to as Benito Tide Méndez et al. v. the Dominican Republic. See IACHR, Report No. 64/12, Case 12.271, Benito Tide Méndez et al. (Dominican Republic), 29 March 2012. The case was litigated in part by the non-governmental organization Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL). [CEJIL Press Release] Although the Dominican Republic has rejected the Court’s ruling, referring to it as “out of season, biased and inappropriate,” CEJIL remains hopeful that State officials will engage in a productive dialogue to address these human rights violations. [Amnesty International; CEJIL]
Although the Inter-American Court, in 2012, fully rescinded its prior order for provisional measures in the case, the Inter-American Commission more recently granted a request for precautionary measures on behalf of human rights defenders engaged in advocacy on these issues. See I/A Court H.R., Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian-origin in the Dominican Republic regarding Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 07, 2012. Series E No. 10; IACHR, Resolution 2/2014, Precautionary Measure No. 408-13, Matter of the Members of the “Movimiento Reconocido” (Dominican Republic) ,30 January 2014.
Facts of the Case
The case was brought on behalf of 26 petitioners, 15 of whom were children, alleging that the Dominican Republic was responsible for the arbitrary arrest and summary expulsion of Haitian individuals and Dominicans of Haitian descent, along with the implementation of discriminatory policies that impeded the right to a nationality for individuals born in the Dominican Republic whose parents were not citizens. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Dominican and Haitian People Expelled v. the Dominican Republic. Judgment of August 28, 2014, para. 1.
The petitioners alleged that State officials had destroyed identity documents and refused to register the birth of individuals of Haitian descent who were born in the Dominican Republic. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish)] Petitioners argued that State officials used racial profiling to arbitrarily expel individuals of Haitian descent within less than 24 hours, without providing guarantees of due process or effective judicial remedies to challenge the expulsions. See IACHR, Report No. 64/12, Case 12.271, Benito Tide Méndez et al. (Dominican Republic), 29 March 2012, para. 2. They alleged that State officials used skin color and other physical characteristics to determine which individuals to detain and expel. See id. at para. 268.
In September 2013, the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic issued a retroactive judgment declaring that people born in the Dominican Republic were not citizens if their parents were foreigners, which had the power to render “tens of thousands” of individuals stateless. [IACHR Press Release] In May 2014, the Dominican Republic’s Congress approved a law that created two categories of people: those whose births were registered in the Dominican registry, and those whose births were not registered. The law categorized the latter group as foreigners who had to apply for Dominican citizenship. [BBC]
The Findings of the Inter-American Commission
The Commission found that the detention, treatment, and mass expulsion of the petitioners resulted in multiple violations of their human rights, including to: juridical personality, humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial, protection of the family, rights of the child, nationality, property, freedom of movement and residence, equality and non-discrimination, and juridical protection. See IACHR, Report No. 64/12, Case 12.271, Benito Tide Méndez et al. (Dominican Republic), 29 March 2012, para. 333. The Commission submitted the case to the Court on June 12, 2012 after the State failed to comply with the recommendations included in the Commission’s merits report.
The Judgment of the Inter-American Court
The Court held that the State violated the rights to: juridical personality, name, nationality, personal liberty, privacy, fair trial, judicial protection, equal protection before the law, freedom of movement and residence, rights of the family, rights of the child, and equality and non-discrimination, as set forth forth in the American Convention on Human Rights. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Dominican and Haitian People Expelled v. the Dominican Republic. Judgment of August 28, 2014, para. 512.
The petitioners argued that the State violated their right to property, but the Court determined that the expulsions underlying that claim were outside of its temporal jurisdiction. See id. at para. 442. The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the State violated their right to personal integrity, reasoning that the facts underlying the alleged violation had already been analyzed in light of other violations. See id. at para. 438.
Violation of the Obligation of Non-Discrimination
The Court held that the Dominican Republic did not comply with its obligation to “respect the rights and freedoms” of all persons without discrimination, with regard to the rights to: juridical personality, personal liberty, privacy, equal protection, name, nationality, fair trial, privacy, judicial protection, rights of the family, and the freedom of movement and residence. See id. at para. 512; see also American Convention on Human Rights, art. 1.1.
Violations of the Right to Juridical Personality, Name, Nationality, and Equal Protection before the Law
The Court held that the State’s failure to acknowledge the petitioners’ identity documentation at the time of their deportation constituted a violation of the rights to: juridical personality, a name, a nationality, and an identity. See id. at para. 276. The State’s refusal to register the births of individuals born in Dominican territory also violated those rights. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Dominican and Haitian People Expelled v. the Dominican Republic. Judgment of August 28, 2014, para. 301.
The Court found that the State’s judgment of September 2013 and legislation of May 2014 violated the right to juridical personality, right to a name, right to a nationality, and the right to equal protection before the law under the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court held that the State’s ruling and legislation violated the right to equality before the law for persons who were born in the State but whose parents were foreigners, reasoning that the State did not demonstrate a valid justification for differential treatment on the basis of parents’ immigration status. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish)]
Furthermore, the Court has previously held that “the migratory status of a person is not transmitted to the children.” See I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 156. The Court added that although the law allowed for citizenship through naturalization, it still impeded the right to a nationality and should be rescinded. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish)]
Violations of the Right to Personal Liberty, Fair Trial, Judicial Protection, Judicial Guarantee, and Freedom of Movement and Residence
The Court found that the petitioners were arbitrarily deprived of their liberty due to racial profiling, were not informed of specific reasons for their deportation, and did not have the opportunity to challenge their deportation before a competent judicial authority. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish)] This constituted a violation of the rights to: personal liberty, fair trial, judicial guarantee, judicial protection, the freedom of movement and residence, and the obligation of non-discrimination. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Dominican and Haitian people expelled v. the Dominican Republic. Judgment of August 28, 2014, paras. 405–407.
The Court also held that the State had violated the prohibition on the collective expulsion of aliens, as set forth in the American Convention on Human Rights, when the State detained and expelled Haitian individuals in less than 48 hours without any evidence that there had been an individualized determination regarding their status. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish)]
Violations of the Right to Privacy, Rights of the Family, and Rights of the Child
The Court found that the State violated the rights of the family under the American Convention on Human Rights, when it separated families by expelling them and later failed to take measures toward reuniting them. The Court held that the State’s interference with the family and private life constituted a violation of the right to privacy because its interference was not justified and was not exercised in accordance with the State’s domestic legal procedures. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish)]
The Court found that the State violated the rights of the child by failing to adopt special measures to protect the child’s best interest with respect to the rights to: juridical personality, personal liberty, fair trial, privacy, family, name, nationality, freedom of movement and residence, equal protection, and judicial protection. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Dominican and Haitian People Expelled v. the Dominican Republic. Judgment of August 28, 2014, paras. 244, 301, 380, 394, 397, 406, 429–430.
The Court’s Order for Reparations
The Court stated that its judgment constitutes a per se form of reparation, and also ordered the Dominican Republic to: adopt measures to ensure that the petitioners receive their identity documents and are able to reside or remain in the Dominican Republic; halt the administrative investigations into expulsion of Dominicans of Haitian descent; publish the judgment; conduct immigration training programs for State officials; prevent the Constitutional Court judgment and national legislation from going into effect; prevent the denial of citizenship to individuals born in the Dominican Republic; adopt measures for accessible birth registration; and pay pecuniary damages and reimburse costs and expenses. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish)]
Additional Information
IJRC has provided coverage of the Court’s 2013 public hearing on the case. Additional information and videos of the Court’s hearing are also available on the Court’s Vimeo page (Spanish only). See IJRC’s Online Resource Hub for more information on the Inter-American Human Rights System.