38 | Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic 58. 59. available to the public, all of which examine various aspects of the situations addressed in this report. As a general rule, the Commission cites all the sources of information it uses when preparing its reports. Nevertheless, as a means to protect the alleged victims and their family members, who supplied information or gave testimony during the visit, their names are not mentioned in order to protect their identity. In its observations to the draft of the present report, the Dominican State indicated that “one especially surprising aspect of the report is the intention of providing a kind of “official history” of the events that have marked the evolution of Dominican history including since its foundation as an independent nation. Every aspect of Dominican history examined by the IACHR and for which it intends to ascribe a meaning or provide an interpretation has led to many considerations on the basis of various approaches, perspectives, and angles, which is what indeed occurs when one reads the output of both Dominican and Haitian historians. There is nothing to prevent the IACHR from referring to relevant historical events, but it does so as if it were dealing with the “true” history, which is a task that does not pertain to its duties or, at least, to its capacities. To quote only one example, paragraph 84 alone, where the IACHR establishes the meaning behind Haitian occupation of the eastern part of the island in 1822 (“put an end to slavery there,” without any other consideration or qualification or analysis), would require a wide-ranging discussion involving historians and experts who would be able to provide the necessary perspective and strike the interpretive balance regarding these events.” 45 60. The Dominican State voiced its surprise at how the events of 1937 were established as the “backdrop” for the Haitian migratory situation in the Dominican Republic, without taking into consideration that said events “took place under a brutal dictatorship against which the Dominican people themselves had to fight to free themselves from it, including the heroic feat of a group of persons who decided to assassinate the tyrant to pave the road for liberalization and democratization of the Dominican political system. Regardless of the discussion between historians about the scope of what happened in 1937, it involves events that have deserved and continue to deserve the most complete repudiation by all sectors of the nation. Nevertheless, the continuous mention of these events, oftentimes deliberately magnified to indelibly brand the Dominican people as bearers of the worst character and values, is offensive and unacceptable for both the Dominican Government and the Dominican people themselves.” 46 Along this order of ideas, the State added that “oftentimes the way history is interpreted conditions or predisposes how present events are appraised and this is what, to a large extent, has occurred with this report, which is replete with judgments about historical events which, at the least, 45 Dominican Republic, Permanent Mission of the Dominican Republic to the Organization of American States. Note MP-RD-OEA 1395-15: Note whereby the note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with Observations of the Dominican State on the “Draft Report of the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic” is forwarded. December 21, 2015, p. 3. Available at: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/docs/anual/2015/doc-es/RD.Observaciones.pdf Ibid., pp. 3-4. 46 Organization of American States | OAS