Recalde-Vela 195 Professor Cassin, during a speech before OAS during the preparatory meetings for the creation and adoption of the ACHR, stated that the most important goal to achieve with the emerging instrument and court was to have a mechanism that would effectively prevent human rights violations and provide reparations for violations.148 Regarding reparations, the IACtHR seeks to achieve ‘integral reparation’, which refers to a comprehensive reparatory framework—composed of various reparatory measures—which can help fully redress human rights violations.149 Access to justice in the Inter-American system must therefore ensure—within a reasonable time period—the right of the (alleged) victims for the truth to be known, to see the responsible party punished and see compensation for the violation they suffered.150 In this spirit, it is clear that the purpose of the Inter-American Human Rights System as a whole is to ensure that the human rights of all persons in the Americas are protected, irrespective of their nationality or lack thereof, rather than to protect state interests.151 Every individual in the region whose rights are violated by a state has the right to seek redress for said violations before the system, irrespective of nationality or lack thereof. Regarding stateless persons, the IACtHR has heard and decided on two cases, the Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic case and the Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic case.152 4.2.2 Statelessness at the IACtHR: challenges and opportunities In Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic, a number of applicants submitted a communication to the IACommHR on the detention and mass expulsion of over 20,000 individuals from the Dominican Republic in 1999.153 The applicants claimed that excessive force was used by the authorities, including sexual abuse, psychological damage, and economic hardship resulting from the forced expulsions.154 Impediments in obtaining nationality for those of Haitian origin155—despite being born on ­Dominican soil—had left thousands stateless.156 The case was first heard before the IACommHR and was later on referred to the IACtHR. In Yean and Bosico, two Dominican girls of Haitian origin had been denied birth certificates by the Dominican authorities.157 This denial rendered the girls stateless and unable to access various essential rights, and in danger of expulsion. One of the girls was unable to attend school due to lack of documentation.158 In both cases the IACtHR ruled in favour of the applicants. Identification of stateless victims during proceedings was the primary challenge faced by stateless persons in Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v Dominican Republic. For example, the state claimed one of the victims had suffered from identity theft, as the person who had been recognized as a victim allegedly could not be identified by his family members as the person he claimed to be.159 However, these claims were rejected by the court and the individuals were later on allowed to participate as victims in the proceedings and eventually were granted reparations for the violations they experienced once the IACtHR found the state had violated their rights. This is a potential challenge posed by a person’s statelessness regarding 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 Organization of American States (OAS), ‘Speech by Professor Rene Cassin before the first plenary session on November 8th, 1969’, Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights (Preparatory Works of the American Convention on Human Rights), (OAS, 1969) OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2, doc 25, at 434. CM Pelayo Moller, ‘La reparación del daño y la efectiva protección de los derechos humanos’ (2010). Case 12.271 Case of Tide Méndez et al. v Dominican Republic, Merits (IACommHR, 2012) Report No 64/12, para 286; see also Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. (IACtHR, 2006), para 382; citing the Case of the Ituango Massacres v Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 2006), para 289. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, ‘The effect of reservations on the entry into force of the American Convention on Human Rights (arts. 74 & 75) (IACtHR, 1982), para 27. This case was litigated under the name Tide Méndez et al. v Dominican Republic before the Commission and the proceedings before the IACtHR. However, for the final ruling, it was renamed Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures Requested by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the matter of the Dominican Republic (IACtHR, 2000), para 2(e). Ibid, para 2(e). Case of Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (IACtHR, 2014), paras 2 & 24. The victims complained of violations of articles 3 (juridical personality), 20 (nationality), 18 (name), 7 (personal liberty), 22 (freedom of movement) of the ACHR, among others. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 2005), para 3. Violations of articles 3 (Juridical Personality), 8 (Fair Trial), 19 (Rights of the Child), 20 (Nationality), 24 (Equal Protection) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the ACHR, among others were claimed. See Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 2005), para 2. Case of Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (IACtHR, 2014), para 61.