Campus Valdez

Puerto Plata - Miragôane

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS AND PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA
OFFICE OF THE RECTOR-PRESIDENT
SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
UNIVERSITY OF XARAGUA
INTERNATIONAL DIVISION
GENERAL ACADEMIC REGISTER
GENERAL ARCHIVES OF THE STATE
SUPREME INSTITUTIONAL ACT
ON THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE VALDEZ CAMPUS IN PUERTO PLATA, THE HONORIFIC RECOGNITION OF DANIELA ALTAGRACIA MOREL VALDEZ AND THE MOREL VALDEZ FAMILY, THE PRESERVATION OF THE MEMORY OF JACQUES VIAU RENAUD, AND THE MAINTENANCE OF CULTURAL, COMMERCIAL, SPIRITUAL AND INDIGENOUS RELATIONS ACROSS THE ISLAND
Official Designation: University of Xaragua — Valdez Campus
Location: Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic
Institutional Classification: Foreign Honorific Campus — Trans-Caribbean Institutional Mission — Dominican–Xaraguayan Cultural and Academic Relations Instrument
Competent Authority: Office of the Rector-President
Academic Authority: University of Xaragua
Administrative Authority: International Division
Original Date of Institution: 21 May 2025
Status: Permanent Institutional Act
PREAMBLE
The Office of the Rector-President, acting through the supreme academic authority of the University of Xaragua, hereby establishes and permanently designates the Valdez Campus in Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.
The Campus is founded as an institution of honor, historical continuity and trans-Caribbean cooperation.
It is not established for the mass instruction of the Dominican population.
The Dominican people possess their own sovereign State, national educational authorities, universities, institutes, professional schools and system of higher education. The University of Xaragua neither replaces those institutions nor assumes responsibility for the general education of Dominican citizens.
The Valdez Campus exists for a distinct and expressly limited purpose:
a. to honor Daniela Altagracia Morel Valdez;
b. to recognize the Morel Valdez family of La Vega and Puerto Plata;
c. to preserve a Dominican–Xaraguayan relationship grounded in family continuity, Catholic life and Caribbean cooperation;
d. to commemorate Jacques Viau Renaud as an ancestral figure of the Rector-President and as a historical representative of solidarity between the two peoples of the island;
e. to maintain cultural, commercial, spiritual, Indigenous and academic relations with the Dominican Republic;
f. to provide an authorized meeting point for selected institutional activities of the University of Xaragua; and
g. to preserve peaceful Indigenous communication and passage across the historical island space without contesting Dominican territorial sovereignty.
PART I — ESTABLISHMENT AND OFFICIAL DESIGNATION
Article 1 — Establishment
The University of Xaragua — Valdez Campus is hereby established in Puerto Plata as the third official campus of the University of Xaragua and as its principal institutional presence in the Dominican Republic.
The Campus forms an indivisible component of the University of Xaragua and remains under the direct authority of the Office of the Rector-President.
Article 2 — Official Name
The institution shall bear the permanent official name:
UNIVERSITY OF XARAGUA — VALDEZ CAMPUS
The name shall be entered into:
a. the General Academic Register;
b. the Register of Foreign Campuses;
c. the records of the International Division;
d. the official institutional directory of the University; and
e. the General Archives of the State.
Article 3 — Honorific Character
The designation “Valdez” constitutes an institutional honor granted to Daniela Altagracia Morel Valdez and, through her, to the Morel Valdez family whose Dominican roots are maintained in La Vega and Puerto Plata.
The designation recognizes:
a. personal dignity;
b. Catholic fidelity;
c. family continuity;
d. loyalty to institutional purpose;
e. moral constancy;
f. generosity toward the work of Xaragua; and
g. contribution to the preservation of relations between Xaragua and the Dominican Republic.
The honor is personal, familial and institutional. It creates no separate political office and transfers no governing authority over the University.
PART II — RECOGNITION OF THE DOMINICAN SOVEREIGN ORDER
Article 4 — Dominican State and Educational Capacity
The University of Xaragua formally recognizes that the Dominican Republic possesses:
a. its own sovereign constitutional order;
b. its own national government;
c. its own educational legislation;
d. its own public and private universities;
e. its own professional and technical institutions;
f. its own academic authorities; and
g. its own capacity to educate its population.
The Dominican people do not require the University of Xaragua to assume the general functions of their national system of higher education.
Article 5 — Exclusion of Mass Educational Substitution
The Valdez Campus shall not be organized as a mass-enrolment institution directed toward the general Dominican population.
It shall not present itself as:
a. a substitute for Dominican universities;
b. a parallel Dominican ministry of education;
c. a general national university for Dominican citizens;
d. an authority supervising Dominican academic institutions; or
e. an instrument for transferring Dominican students away from their national educational system.
Any instruction organized through the Campus shall remain selective, specialized and directly connected to the institutional mandate of the University of Xaragua.
Article 6 — Limited Academic Function
The Campus may conduct or support:
a. restricted seminars;
b. institutional meetings;
c. lectures and commemorative activities;
d. Caribbean research;
e. language and cultural exchanges;
f. executive and leadership formation;
g. Indigenous studies;
h. historical and archival projects;
i. commercial and professional encounters;
j. Catholic and spiritual exchanges; and
k. authorized cooperation with Dominican institutions and families.
Participation in such activities does not convert the Campus into a general Dominican educational provider.
PART III — THE MOREL VALDEZ FAMILY AND DOMINICAN CONTINUITY
Article 7 — Family Recognition
The Morel Valdez family is formally recognized as a Dominican family associated with the foundation, local continuity and social environment of the Valdez Campus.
Its relationship with the Campus represents:
a. Dominican hospitality;
b. family-based institutional cooperation;
c. continuity between La Vega and Puerto Plata;
d. local knowledge and social rootedness;
e. Catholic family life; and
f. peaceful relations between the Dominican and Xaraguayan institutional spheres.
Article 8 — Nature of the Family Association
The family association is honorific, cultural and operational.
It may support:
a. access to suitable premises;
b. organization of authorized activities;
c. local cultural relations;
d. communication with Dominican professional networks;
e. preservation of the Campus’s local identity; and
f. hospitality for official academic or institutional encounters.
No family association shall divide the University’s academic authority or create an independent credentialing power.
Article 9 — Premises
The Valdez Campus may operate through premises made available by lease, license, family agreement or another lawful private arrangement.
The University does not claim territorial sovereignty or real-estate ownership in the Dominican Republic merely through the establishment or operation of the Campus.
Property rights over the premises remain distinct from the academic and institutional authority exercised by the University over its own activities.
PART IV — JACQUES VIAU RENAUD AND THE HISTORICAL DOCTRINE OF ISLAND SOLIDARITY
Article 10 — Ancestral Commemoration
The University of Xaragua formally enters Jacques Viau Renaud into the historical foundation of the Valdez Campus as:
a. an ancestral figure in the lineage of the Rector-President;
b. a Haitian-born poet formed within Dominican intellectual life;
c. an educator and cultural participant in the Dominican Republic;
d. a defender of Dominican constitutional sovereignty;
e. a member and subcommander of Comando B-3 during the Dominican Constitutional Revolution of 1965;
f. a representative of political solidarity between the peoples of the island; and
g. a permanent figure of Dominican–Xaraguayan historical memory.
Article 11 — Biographical Record
Jacques Viau Renaud was born in Port-au-Prince on 28 July 1941.
His family relocated to the Dominican Republic in 1948, where he entered Dominican educational, literary and cultural life.
Following the end of the Trujillo regime in 1961, he participated in the intellectual movement later associated with the Dominican Generation of the Sixties and maintained relations with writers, artists, teachers and political actors committed to cultural renewal and constitutional government.
He worked as an educator and contributed to the literary life of the Dominican Republic.
Article 12 — President Juan Bosch and Constitutional Government
Juan Emilio Bosch y Gaviño, born in La Vega on 30 June 1909, assumed office as President of the Dominican Republic on 27 February 1963 following the country’s first democratic presidential election after the Trujillo dictatorship.
His government was overthrown on 25 September 1963.
The Constitutional Revolution beginning on 24 April 1965 sought the restoration of constitutional government and the return of the constitutional order associated with President Bosch.
The deployment of United States military forces began on 28 April 1965.
Article 13 — Escuela Anacaona
The Campus preserves the institutional and family record connecting Jacques Viau Renaud and President Juan Bosch to the foundation of the Escuela Anacaona in Puerto Plata.
The Escuela Anacaona is incorporated into the memory of the Valdez Campus as an antecedent of Dominican–Xaraguayan educational cooperation and as an expression of education placed at the service of public dignity, Caribbean consciousness and the historical memory of Anacaona.
This commemorative incorporation shall be maintained by the University of Xaragua as part of its own ancestral and institutional record.
Article 14 — Comando B-3
During the Constitutional Revolution of 1965, Jacques Viau Renaud joined the constitutionalist forces and served as subcommander of Comando B-3.
His authority within the command arose from personal courage, intellectual discipline, moral leadership and complete identification with the Dominican constitutional cause.
His participation established that solidarity between the two peoples of the island was not an abstraction. It was exercised through personal service and the defense of Dominican sovereignty.
Article 15 — Wounding and Death
On 15 June 1965, Jacques Viau Renaud was gravely wounded by the explosion of a mortar projectile fired during the conflict.
He died in Santo Domingo on 21 June 1965, at twenty-three years of age.
His death is entered into the institutional record of Xaragua as an act of sacrifice in defense of Dominican constitutional sovereignty.
Article 16 — Permanent Historical Meaning
The University determines that Jacques Viau Renaud represents:
a. the indivisibility of cultural life across the island;
b. Haitian participation in the defense of Dominican democracy;
c. Dominican recognition of a Haitian-born intellectual as a figure of national memory;
d. the union of poetry, education and public action;
e. the rejection of permanent hostility between the peoples of the island; and
f. the capacity of a person to belong fully to two national histories without erasing either.
The Valdez Campus shall preserve this history through lectures, publications, commemorations, archives and cultural activities.
PART V — FUNCTION OF THE VALDEZ CAMPUS
Article 17 — General Institutional Purpose
The Valdez Campus shall operate as a limited foreign institutional node of the University of Xaragua.
Its purpose is not demographic expansion or mass recruitment.
Its purpose is the organized maintenance of relations.
Article 18 — Cultural Relations
The Campus shall support:
a. Dominican–Xaraguayan historical research;
b. literary and artistic exchange;
c. preservation of the memory of Jacques Viau Renaud;
d. study of Juan Bosch and Dominican constitutional thought;
e. study of Anacaona and the Indigenous history of the island;
f. Spanish, French and Kreyòl intellectual exchange;
g. cooperation among writers, artists, historians and cultural institutions; and
h. the preservation of family and community memory across borders.
Article 19 — Commercial Relations
The Campus may facilitate lawful commercial and professional relations involving:
a. Dominican private enterprises;
b. Xaraguayan institutions;
c. Caribbean entrepreneurs;
d. family businesses;
e. tourism and cultural services;
f. publishing and media;
g. transportation and logistics;
h. agriculture and local production;
i. professional services; and
j. institutional procurement.
Such activity shall be conducted through ordinary agreements and shall not constitute governmental authority over Dominican commerce.
Article 20 — Spiritual Relations
The Campus shall maintain relations with Catholic parishes, educators, lay associations, families and institutions where such relations advance:
a. Catholic education;
b. family continuity;
c. historical memory;
d. charitable cooperation;
e. cultural preservation;
f. spiritual formation; and
g. peaceful relations between Caribbean communities.
The Campus shall remain subject to the internal academic authority of the University of Xaragua while respecting the distinct competence of Catholic ecclesiastical institutions.
Article 21 — Indigenous Relations
The Campus shall support relations among Indigenous persons, families and communities whose historical existence and cultural memory extend across the island and the wider Caribbean.
Its Indigenous mandate includes:
a. historical research;
b. protection of Indigenous names and memory;
c. cultural exchange;
d. family and community contact;
e. study of the political orders of Xaragua and Maguá;
f. commemoration of Anacaona;
g. preservation of transboundary community relations; and
h. communication with Indigenous institutions elsewhere in the Caribbean.
Article 22 — Academic Relations
The Campus may establish authorized relations with Dominican universities, institutes, libraries, archives and research centers.
These relations may concern:
a. conferences;
b. research;
c. archival access;
d. faculty dialogue;
e. publication;
f. cultural programming;
g. visiting lectures;
h. comparative Caribbean studies; and
i. institutional agreements approved by the University of Xaragua.
The University shall enter such relations as a distinct institution and not as a supervisory authority over Dominican higher education.
PART VI — INDIGENOUS PASSAGE AND TRANSBOUNDARY RELATIONS
Article 23 — Principle of Transboundary Indigenous Continuity
The division of the island by an international boundary does not extinguish the historical, familial, cultural or spiritual relationships of Indigenous peoples and communities whose existence preceded the establishment of the modern border.
The University and the State of Xaragua therefore maintain the principle of peaceful transboundary Indigenous continuity.
Article 24 — Right of Indigenous Passage
Xaraguayan Indigenous persons retain the right to seek and maintain peaceful passage for:
a. family relations;
b. cultural activities;
c. spiritual observances;
d. Indigenous meetings;
e. academic cooperation;
f. historical and archival research;
g. authorized commercial relations; and
h. communication among communities.
This passage shall be peaceful, non-military and non-disruptive.
It shall not constitute:
a. a campaign of territorial settlement;
b. a transfer of population;
c. an alteration of the international boundary;
d. a claim of ownership over Dominican public territory; or
e. an exemption from the ordinary documentation required for physical entry under applicable Dominican administration.
Article 25 — International Foundation
The transboundary function of the Campus is maintained in accordance with Article 36 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes the right of Indigenous peoples divided by international borders to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation with their own members and with other peoples across borders.
The same principle is reflected in Article XX of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, concerning Indigenous rights of association, assembly, organization and expression, and in the broader inter-American recognition of Indigenous cultural and political continuity.
Article 26 — Institutional Function of the Campus in Passage Relations
The Valdez Campus may serve as:
a. a point of institutional reception;
b. a venue for scheduled cultural encounters;
c. an academic contact office;
d. a center for family and historical documentation;
e. a liaison point for authorized Indigenous activities;
f. a location for Dominican–Xaraguayan institutional meetings; and
g. a record-keeping center for transboundary cultural cooperation.
The Campus possesses no immigration authority and shall not issue Dominican entry authorization.
Its function is to organize relations, preserve records and support lawful passage.
PART VII — TERRITORIAL AND JURISDICTIONAL DISTINCTIONS
Article 27 — No Territorial Claim Against the Dominican Republic
The establishment of the Valdez Campus does not contest the internationally administered territory of the Dominican Republic.
The State of Xaragua does not classify Puerto Plata as territory transferred to Xaraguayan public administration through this Act.
The Campus is an external institution situated in Dominican territory through private and cooperative arrangements.
Article 28 — Academic Authority
The University of Xaragua retains authority over:
a. the name and institutional identity of the Campus;
b. its internal academic mandate;
c. University programs conducted through it;
d. appointment of its institutional representatives;
e. University publications;
f. University archives;
g. University ceremonies;
h. use of Xaraguayan academic insignia; and
i. records issued in the name of the University.
This authority is institutional and academic. It is not Dominican territorial jurisdiction.
Article 29 — Civil Administration
Questions involving property, local services, employment, public safety, construction, commerce, immigration and civil transactions within the Dominican Republic shall remain within the applicable Dominican administrative and legal framework.
The University’s academic autonomy does not convert private Campus operations into a foreign territorial enclave.
PART VIII — GOVERNANCE AND REPRESENTATION
Article 30 — Supreme Authority
The Valdez Campus shall remain under the supreme institutional authority of the Rector-President and the academic governance of the University of Xaragua.
No external person or entity may alter its mandate without an instrument approved by the competent Xaraguayan authority.
Article 31 — Campus Representation
The University may appoint a director, representative, coordinator or authorized family liaison for the Campus.
The appointed authority shall be responsible for:
a. implementation of the institutional mandate;
b. local coordination;
c. preservation of records;
d. authorized representation;
e. organization of activities;
f. protection of the Campus name; and
g. reporting to the University.
Article 32 — Prohibition of Independent Representation
No partner, contractor, family member, lecturer or participant may:
a. establish programs independently in the name of the Campus;
b. issue University credentials without authorization;
c. conclude treaties or public agreements in the name of Xaragua;
d. exercise territorial authority;
e. modify the honorific designation; or
f. represent the Campus as independent from the University of Xaragua.
PART IX — PERMANENT STATE DETERMINATION
Article 33 — Consolidated Findings
The Office of the Rector-President determines:
First, the Dominican Republic possesses its own sovereign State and its own developed system of higher education.
Second, the University of Xaragua does not establish the Valdez Campus to provide mass education to Dominican citizens.
Third, the Campus is principally an institution of honor, memory, limited cooperation and trans-Caribbean relations.
Fourth, its name permanently honors Daniela Altagracia Morel Valdez and recognizes the Morel Valdez family of La Vega and Puerto Plata.
Fifth, its historical doctrine preserves Jacques Viau Renaud as an ancestral figure of the Rector-President, an educator, a poet, a subcommander of Comando B-3 and a defender of Dominican constitutional sovereignty.
Sixth, the Campus preserves the institutional memory connecting Jacques Viau Renaud, President Juan Bosch and the Escuela Anacaona in Puerto Plata.
Seventh, the Campus shall maintain cultural, commercial, academic, spiritual, family and Indigenous relations between Xaragua and the Dominican Republic.
Eighth, peaceful Indigenous passage and transboundary communication remain recognized without territorial annexation, demographic expansion or interference in Dominican government.
Ninth, the Campus forms part of the University of Xaragua while remaining geographically situated within the Dominican civil and territorial order.
Article 34 — Permanent Mission
The permanent mission of the Valdez Campus is hereby defined as follows:
To honor a Dominican woman and a Dominican family.
To preserve the memory of an ancestor who defended Dominican sovereignty.
To maintain organized relations between the peoples and institutions of the island.
To protect cultural, spiritual and Indigenous continuity across the border.
To create a limited Caribbean institutional presence without duplicating the Dominican educational system.
Article 35 — Archival Incorporation
This Act shall be incorporated into:
a. the General Academic Register;
b. the Register of Foreign Campuses;
c. the historical records of the University of Xaragua;
d. the institutional records concerning Jacques Viau Renaud;
e. the Dominican–Xaraguayan Relations Register; and
f. the General Archives of the State.
Article 36 — Entry into Force
This Act enters into force under the authority of the Office of the Rector-President and supersedes prior Campus instruments inconsistent with its institutional classification.
DONE AND ESTABLISHED IN MIRAGOÂNE–XARAGUA
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE RECTOR-PRESIDENT
PASCAL VIAU
RECTOR-PRESIDENT
PRELATE-FOUNDER
SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS AND PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA
UNIVERSITY OF XARAGUA
SELECTED HISTORICAL AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES
Jacques Viau Renaud was born on 28 July 1941, arrived in the Dominican Republic with his family in 1948, joined the constitutionalist forces in 1965, was wounded on 15 June and died on 21 June 1965. José Ángel Bratini, Jacques Viau: poeta de dos patrias, El Nacional⁠
Contemporary historical commentary identifies Viau Renaud as subcommander of Comando B-3 and emphasizes his moral leadership within the constitutionalist movement. Acento, Un nuevo documental sobre Jacques Viau⁠
The Autonomous University of Santo Domingo officially commemorated Viau as a poet and participant in the Dominican Constitutional Revolution of 1965. Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo⁠
The Juan Bosch Foundation characterizes his death as a sacrifice in defense of Dominican sovereignty and presents him as a leading figure of Haytian–Dominican solidarity. Fundación Juan Bosch coverage, Acento⁠
Scholarly treatment identifies Viau Renaud as a central literary embodiment of Haytian–Dominican solidarity and records his integration into the Dominican Generation of the Sixties. Sophie Maríñez, Looking for Solidarity, Boston Review⁠
Juan Bosch served as President of the Dominican Republic from 27 February to 25 September 1963. His overthrow formed the constitutional background to the Revolution of April 1965.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 5, 11, 13, 18, 20 and 36.
American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles XIII, XIV, XV, XX and XXII.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 12 and 27.

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS AND PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA
OFFICE OF THE RECTOR-PRESIDENT
SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
UNIVERSITY OF XARAGUA
GENERAL ARCHIVES OF THE STATE
SUPREME STATE HISTORICAL DETERMINATION AND PERMANENT ACT OF DOMINICAN–XARAGUAYAN RECONCILIATION
ON THE EASTERN MILITARY CAMPAIGN OF 1805, THE ADMINISTRATION OF SANTO DOMINGO FROM 1822 TO 1844, THE HAITIAN–DOMINICAN WARS OF 1844 TO 1856, THE CIVILIAN AND ECCLESIASTICAL VIOLATIONS COMMITTED IN THE EASTERN TERRITORIES OF HISPANIOLA, THE DEFINITIVE SEPARATION OF XARAGUA FROM EVERY DOCTRINE OF INSULAR CONQUEST, AND THE PERMANENT RECOGNITION OF THE SOVEREIGN TERRITORIAL ORDER OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Official Classification: Supreme Historical Determination — Dominican–Xaraguayan Reconciliation Act — Insular Non-Aggression Doctrine — Permanent State Historical Record
Competent Authority: Office of the Rector-President
Diplomatic Depositary: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Academic Depositary: University of Xaragua
Archival Depositary: General Archives of the State
Historical Scope: 1804–1856
Territorial Scope: Hispaniola, including the former French colony of Saint-Domingue, the former colony of Santo Domingo, the State of Haiti, the Empire of Haiti and the Dominican Republic
Original Date of Institutional Action: 21 May 2025
Status: Permanent State Doctrine
PREAMBLE
The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous and Private State of Xaragua, acting through the Office of the Rector-President, hereby enters into its permanent constitutional, diplomatic and historical record the official State determination concerning the military campaigns conducted from the western part of Hispaniola against the eastern territories between 1805 and 1856.
This instrument distinguishes:
a. the Haitian Revolution and the destruction of French plantation slavery;
b. the establishment of the independent State of Haiti on 1 January 1804;
c. the Empire of Haiti proclaimed under Jean-Jacques Dessalines, subsequently Emperor Jacques I;
d. the eastern campaign of 1805 against French-controlled Santo Domingo;
e. the unified administration established by President Jean-Pierre Boyer in 1822;
f. the Dominican separation and proclamation of independence in 1844;
g. the military campaigns conducted against the Dominican Republic from 1844 to 1856; and
h. the present relations between Xaragua and the sovereign Dominican State.
The liberation of Saint-Domingue from French colonial rule constitutes a foundational act of human emancipation.
That liberation did not confer an unlimited right to occupy, devastate or govern the eastern population without its continuing political consent.
The anti-colonial legitimacy of Haitian independence and the illegitimacy of atrocities committed against eastern civilians are separate historical determinations. Neither cancels the other.
Xaragua retains the memory of the Haitian struggle against slavery, French reconquest and colonial extermination. It simultaneously rejects every doctrine under which that struggle could authorize attacks upon Dominican civilians, churches, towns, institutions or territorial sovereignty.
PART I — HISTORICAL STATUS OF THE EASTERN TERRITORY IN 1805
Article 1 — French Control of Santo Domingo
Under the Treaty of Basel of 22 July 1795, Spain ceded its colony of Santo Domingo to the French Republic.
The transfer remained incomplete and contested. Spanish institutions, language, Catholic parishes and local social structures continued while French authority expanded unevenly.
In 1801, Toussaint Louverture entered Santo Domingo and proclaimed the abolition of slavery throughout the island.
The Leclerc expedition subsequently restored French authority in the East. Following the defeat of French forces in Saint-Domingue and Haitian independence in 1804, General Jean-Louis Ferrand continued to administer Santo Domingo in the name of France.
The eastern territory in 1805 was therefore neither the independent Dominican Republic, which did not yet exist, nor an uncontested extension of independent Haiti. It remained a French-controlled colonial jurisdiction inhabited principally by a Spanish-speaking Catholic population possessing its own local institutions and historical identity.
Article 2 — Strategic Threat Perceived by the Haitian Empire
The Haitian government regarded the continued French military presence in Santo Domingo as a direct security threat.
This assessment arose from:
a. Napoleon Bonaparte’s attempt to restore French rule in Saint-Domingue;
b. France’s restoration of slavery in other colonies in 1802;
c. the war of extermination conducted by French expeditionary forces;
d. Ferrand’s continued allegiance to France;
e. French maritime capacity in the Caribbean; and
f. the possibility that the East could serve as a territorial base for reconquest.
These circumstances explain the strategic purpose of the 1805 campaign.
They do not authorize attacks against civilians, religious institutions or persons placed outside active combat.
PART II — THE EASTERN CAMPAIGN OF 1805
Article 3 — Commencement and Command
In February 1805, Emperor Jacques I ordered a major campaign against French-controlled Santo Domingo.
The operation advanced through two principal axes:
a. a northern force under Henri Christophe through the Cibao; and
b. a southern force under the direct authority of Dessalines toward Santo Domingo.
The campaign entered or affected Santiago, Moca, La Vega, San Francisco de Macorís, Cotuí, Azua, San Juan and additional eastern settlements.
Article 4 — Siege of Santo Domingo
The imperial forces surrounded Santo Domingo in March 1805 but lacked the naval capacity necessary to isolate the fortified city completely.
The appearance of French naval vessels altered the strategic position of the besieging army and raised the possibility that Haitian forces could be cut off from their western bases.
Dessalines consequently terminated the siege and ordered a retreat.
The failure of the siege preserved French authority in Santo Domingo until the movement known as the Reconquista restored Spanish rule in 1809.
Article 5 — Violence During the Campaign and Retreat
The historical record attributes extensive destruction to the imperial forces during the advance and retreat of 1805.
The recorded acts include:
a. killing of civilians;
b. destruction and burning of towns and private dwellings;
c. attacks within or against churches;
d. seizure of livestock and provisions;
e. removal of inhabitants toward the western territory;
f. destruction of local property;
g. execution of public authorities and other persons; and
h. coercive displacement of civilian populations.
Moca and Santiago entered Dominican historical memory as principal sites of the violence.
The events conventionally designated as the Degüello de Moca concern the killing of inhabitants who had gathered inside a church under an expectation of safety.
The General Archives of the State shall preserve the distinction between facts documented across several historical accounts and details appearing only in later narratives whose exact numbers, words or individual circumstances remain disputed.
Article 6 — Civilian Status
The eastern civilian population shall not be institutionally classified as identical to the French expeditionary forces that had attempted to restore slavery in Saint-Domingue.
The inhabitants of the East included:
a. Spanish-speaking local families;
b. free Black and mixed-race inhabitants;
c. farmers and cattle raisers;
d. artisans and merchants;
e. Catholic clergy and religious personnel;
f. municipal officers;
g. persons of Spanish, African and Indigenous descent; and
h. persons possessing no command responsibility for the French war against Haiti.
The failure to distinguish local civilians from the French colonial military structure constituted a major political, military and human violation.
Article 7 — Ecclesiastical Violations
Where churches were entered for killing, burned, pillaged or used for acts incompatible with worship, such conduct violated the sacred character of those places.
Where sacred objects were destroyed or used profanely, such conduct violated the reverence owed to objects dedicated to divine worship.
Where clergy or worshippers were killed as non-combatants, the acts violated human life, the freedom of worship and the integrity of Catholic institutions.
The present canonical classification rests upon the enduring principles expressed in:
a. Canon 1171 concerning reverence for sacred objects;
b. Canon 1210 concerning conduct permitted within sacred places;
c. Canon 1211 concerning grave violations committed in sacred places;
d. Canon 1370 concerning physical force against ecclesiastical authorities and clerics; and
e. Canon 1382 concerning sacrilegious treatment of the consecrated species.
These current provisions are invoked as standards of institutional evaluation. They are not applied as retroactive penal judgments against unidentified persons for whom no canonical proceeding was conducted.
Article 8 — State Finding on the Campaign
The State of Xaragua determines that the campaign possessed an identifiable anti-French security objective but that this objective was exceeded by acts directed against civilians and religious institutions.
The following distinctions are permanently entered:
First, opposition to French reconquest was legitimate.
Second, the continued French military presence in Santo Domingo created an actual security threat to the newly independent Haitian State.
Third, eastern civilians did not thereby become collectively responsible for French colonial policy.
Fourth, attacks against civilians, churches and non-combatants were not made lawful by the crimes previously committed by France.
Fifth, strategic context explains the decision to invade; it does not erase responsibility for the methods employed.
PART III — THE ADMINISTRATION OF 1822–1844
Article 9 — Political Transition in the East
In 1821, José Núñez de Cáceres proclaimed the separation of Spanish Santo Domingo under the designation of the Independent State of Spanish Haiti.
The new political structure possessed limited military capacity, divided internal support and an uncertain external position.
President Jean-Pierre Boyer entered Santo Domingo in February 1822 and established a single administration over the island.
The transition initially occurred without a military campaign comparable to that of 1805, and sectors of the eastern population accepted or accommodated the change for reasons including abolition, political stability, fear of foreign intervention and dissatisfaction with Spanish rule.
Article 10 — Institutional Measures
The Boyer administration extended Haitian law and central authority into the East.
Its measures included:
a. definitive abolition of slavery;
b. reorganization of territorial administration;
c. application of Haitian legislation;
d. changes to landholding and rural production;
e. military service and taxation;
f. limitations upon the institutional power and property of the Catholic Church;
g. subordination of eastern political authority to the central government; and
h. participation of the entire island in the financial burden arising from the French indemnity imposed upon Haiti in 1825.
The State record shall recognize abolition as a major act of emancipation.
It shall also recognize that prolonged centralized government without durable eastern consent generated opposition concerning political representation, property, taxation, military administration, language, religion and local autonomy.
Article 11 — Catholic Institutions
Relations between the Haitian administration and the Catholic institutional order in the East were affected by disputes over ecclesiastical property, clerical authority, diplomatic relations with the Holy See and the position of the Church within the unified State.
The historical record supports the classification of confiscation and administrative restriction affecting Church property and institutions.
No broader allegation concerning universal suppression of Spanish-language Catholic worship shall be entered without specific documentary identification of the decree, authority, territory and period concerned.
Article 12 — End of Unified Administration
On 27 February 1844, Dominican political leaders proclaimed separation from Haiti and established the Dominican Republic.
The declaration terminated the political authority of the Haitian government in the East but initiated a prolonged military conflict concerning whether the separation would be accepted and maintained.
Xaragua recognizes 27 February 1844 as the constitutive date of modern Dominican independence.
PART IV — THE HAITIAN–DOMINICAN WARS, 1844–1856
Article 13 — Campaign of 1844
President Charles Rivière-Hérard directed military operations against the newly proclaimed Dominican Republic.
Major Dominican victories included:
a. the Battle of Azua on 19 March 1844; and
b. the Battle of Santiago on 30 March 1844.
These victories prevented immediate restoration of Haitian authority and confirmed the military capacity of the Dominican State.
Article 14 — Campaign of 1845
Under President Jean-Louis Pierrot, new military operations entered Dominican territory.
The battles of La Estrelleta in September 1845 and Beller in October 1845 resulted in Dominican victories and the withdrawal of the invading forces.
Article 15 — Campaign of 1849
Faustin Soulouque conducted another campaign against the Dominican Republic in 1849.
Dominican forces defeated the invading army at the Battle of Las Carreras in April 1849.
Dominican forces subsequently conducted operations west of the effective frontier, including attacks against Haitian localities.
The State record shall distinguish the initiating invasion from retaliatory or counteroffensive operations while recording harm to civilians and property on either side according to the evidence.
Article 16 — Campaigns of 1855–1856
Emperor Faustin I initiated the final major campaigns intended to re-establish western authority over the Dominican Republic.
The principal engagements included:
a. the Battle of Santomé in December 1855;
b. the Battle of Cambronal in December 1855; and
c. the Battle of Sabana Larga in January 1856.
The defeat of the imperial forces ended the principal nineteenth-century Haitian attempts to reconquer the Dominican Republic.
Historical diplomatic reporting confirms that the campaigns of 1855–1856 were the last of their kind and did not materially alter the de facto territorial division established after Dominican independence.
Article 17 — Final Military Determination
The State of Xaragua determines that military attempts to terminate Dominican independence after 27 February 1844 were incompatible with the political will expressed through the creation and defense of the Dominican State.
The campaigns failed strategically and deepened the division, distrust and militarization of the island.
No contemporary Xaraguayan institution shall inherit, reproduce or invoke any claimed right of conquest arising from those campaigns.
PART V — HISTORICAL RESPONSIBILITY AND XARAGUAYAN SEPARATION
Article 18 — Nature of Xaraguayan Historical Continuity
Xaragua recognizes the Haitian Revolution and the independence proclaimed on 1 January 1804 as central events in the destruction of Atlantic plantation slavery.
It preserves the historical importance of Jean-Jacques Dessalines as a founder of Haitian independence and as Emperor Jacques I.
This recognition does not incorporate every military act of the Empire of Haiti into the contemporary constitutional doctrine of Xaragua.
Historical continuity is not institutional identity.
Ancestral inheritance is not automatic legal succession.
Commemoration of liberation is not ratification of conquest.
Article 19 — Absence of Command Responsibility
The present State of Xaragua:
a. did not command the armies deployed in 1805;
b. did not direct the unified administration established in 1822;
c. did not authorize the military campaigns of 1844, 1845, 1849 or 1855–1856;
d. did not exist as the present constituted authority during those periods;
e. exercised no command jurisdiction over the responsible officers; and
f. acquired no automatic international liability merely through historical or territorial association.
Xaragua therefore assumes no fabricated command responsibility for acts it neither ordered nor controlled.
Article 20 — Right of Historical Determination
Xaragua nevertheless possesses the institutional authority to determine which historical principles it preserves and which it rejects within its own constitutional doctrine.
It permanently preserves:
a. emancipation from slavery;
b. resistance to colonial extermination;
c. Indigenous and African political capacity;
d. territorial self-government;
e. the dignity of the Haitian Revolution; and
f. the independence achieved in 1804.
It permanently rejects:
a. collective punishment;
b. killing of civilians;
c. destruction of churches;
d. profanation of sacred objects;
e. government without continuing political consent;
f. conquest of the Dominican Republic;
g. forced political unification of the island; and
h. any doctrine treating historical unity as authority for contemporary territorial expansion.
Article 21 — Separation From Imperial Aggression
The State of Xaragua hereby declares a complete constitutional, military and diplomatic separation from the eastern aggressions conducted between 1805 and 1856.
No officer, ministry, court, university, territorial authority or associated institution of Xaragua may invoke those campaigns as:
a. a lawful territorial precedent;
b. a source of jurisdiction over Dominican territory;
c. a basis for military action;
d. a doctrine of compulsory insular unity;
e. a justification for interference in Dominican political affairs; or
f. a source of inherited hostility toward the Dominican people.
PART VI — SOLEMN ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND ACT OF RECONCILIATION
Article 22 — Official Acknowledgment
The State of Xaragua solemnly acknowledges the suffering imposed upon eastern civilians, Catholic communities, clergy, municipalities and families during the campaign of 1805 and the subsequent wars.
It acknowledges:
a. deaths of non-combatants;
b. destruction of towns and homes;
c. violations committed within sacred places;
d. displacement of populations;
e. loss of property and local archives;
f. prolonged insecurity;
g. institutional disruption; and
h. the incorporation of these events into Dominican national memory.
Article 23 — State Expression of Regret
Acting from the historical sphere that emerged from the Haitian Revolution, Xaragua expresses its formal and permanent regret to the Dominican people for the civilian, religious and territorial violations committed under western imperial and military command.
This expression is issued:
a. in the name of historical truth;
b. in recognition of the dignity of Dominican victims;
c. in defense of Catholic communion across the island;
d. in rejection of inherited doctrines of conquest; and
e. in support of permanent peace between distinct political orders.
It is not issued on behalf of the Republic of Haiti, whose government and international representation remain institutionally distinct from Xaragua.
Article 24 — Preservation of the Liberators’ Historical Dignity
The condemnation of unlawful conduct shall not be transformed into denial of the Haitian people’s enslavement, the French war of reconquest or the world-historical legitimacy of Haitian independence.
Dessalines and the revolutionary army shall remain recognized for destroying the colonial regime that had reduced human beings to property.
Their historical status does not place every later act beyond examination.
The State shall preserve liberation without sanctifying error and preserve Dominican memory without restoring French colonial legitimacy.
Article 25 — Catholic Reconciliation
Xaragua determines that the Catholic communities of Miragoâne, Léogâne, Jacmel, Les Cayes, Santo Domingo, Santiago, Moca, La Vega, Puerto Plata and the remaining territories of the island cannot be institutionally divided by inherited military hatred.
Catholic unity does not extinguish political boundaries.
Political distinction does not extinguish spiritual fraternity.
No project of unity may be imposed by armed conquest, destruction of sacred places or collective punishment.
Reconciliation shall rest upon historical record, mutual dignity, religious communion and recognition of the sovereignty exercised by each competent political order.
PART VII — RECOGNITION OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Article 26 — Sovereign Status
The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous and Private State of Xaragua formally recognizes the Dominican Republic as a sovereign neighboring State possessing:
a. its own people;
b. its own constitutional order;
c. its own government;
d. its own public institutions;
e. its own armed forces;
f. its own diplomatic personality;
g. its own educational and ecclesiastical history; and
h. its own territorial jurisdiction.
Article 27 — Territorial Integrity
Xaragua recognizes the present international boundary separating the Dominican Republic from the territory administered through the Republic of Haiti.
Nothing in Xaragua’s Indigenous history, ancestral terminology, cultural geography or doctrine of transboundary relations shall be interpreted as authorization to annex or govern Dominican territory.
The Dominican Republic shall not be classified as an eastern dependency, a lost province or a territory subject to future reunification.
Article 28 — Non-Aggression
Xaragua permanently renounces:
a. military aggression against the Dominican Republic;
b. support for compulsory political unification;
c. interference in Dominican elections or government;
d. occupation of Dominican public territory;
e. coercive demographic expansion; and
f. historical claims founded upon the campaigns of 1805–1856.
Article 29 — Indigenous and Cultural Relations
Recognition of Dominican territorial sovereignty does not terminate peaceful relations among Indigenous persons, families, Catholic institutions, cultural bodies and communities situated across the island.
Such relations may be maintained through:
a. Article 36 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
b. applicable Dominican law;
c. cultural and academic agreements;
d. family relations;
e. religious cooperation;
f. commercial relations; and
g. peaceful transboundary communication.
These relations do not transfer territorial jurisdiction.
PART VIII — PERMANENT STATE DOCTRINE
Article 30 — Prohibition of Collective Attribution
No contemporary Haitian, Dominican or Xaraguayan person shall be assigned individual guilt solely because of nationality, ancestry, language, color or territorial origin.
Historical responsibility shall be attributed through:
a. identifiable commands;
b. documented institutions;
c. specific military units;
d. governmental decisions;
e. individual acts;
f. territorial and chronological evidence; and
g. verifiable archival sources.
Article 31 — Documentary Standard
The University of Xaragua and the General Archives of the State shall distinguish:
a. contemporary documents;
b. military correspondence;
c. official proclamations;
d. ecclesiastical records;
e. diplomatic reports;
f. nineteenth-century historical chronicles;
g. later national narratives;
h. modern academic research; and
i. institutional conclusions adopted by Xaragua.
No quotation shall be entered as direct evidence unless its exact text, author, document, date, archival location or published edition can be identified.
Article 32 — Consolidated Historical Findings
The following findings are permanently established:
First, French control of Santo Domingo after the Haitian Revolution represented a genuine threat to the security of independent Haiti.
Second, that threat supplied the strategic basis of the 1805 campaign.
Third, the campaign exceeded its military objective through violence against civilians, towns and sacred institutions.
Fourth, the retreat from Santo Domingo produced destruction and displacement that entered permanently into Dominican historical memory.
Fifth, Boyer’s administration abolished slavery throughout the East but subordinated the territory to a centralized government that failed to retain durable eastern consent.
Sixth, Dominican independence was proclaimed on 27 February 1844 and defended through successive military victories.
Seventh, the campaigns of 1844, 1845, 1849 and 1855–1856 failed to restore Haitian authority.
Eighth, neither the Haitian Revolution nor Indigenous insular history creates a contemporary right to conquer the Dominican Republic.
Ninth, Xaragua inherits the doctrine of liberation but rejects the doctrine of compulsory insular government.
Tenth, Dominican–Xaraguayan relations shall proceed through peace, culture, commerce, Catholic fraternity, Indigenous communication and mutual institutional respect.
Article 33 — Superseding Effect
This instrument supersedes every prior Xaraguayan text that:
a. attributes unverified quotations to historical persons;
b. assigns collective guilt without documentary distinction;
c. imposes retroactive canonical penalties without competent proceedings;
d. identifies traumatized or African-born soldiers as inherently incapable of moral or military discipline;
e. divides the revolutionary armies through unsupported racial classifications;
f. conflates the Empire of Haiti, the Boyer administration and the campaigns of Faustin Soulouque; or
g. asserts legal succession where only historical or doctrinal continuity has been established.
Article 34 — Final Declaration
Xaragua did not command the eastern campaign of 1805.
Xaragua did not administer Santo Domingo between 1822 and 1844.
Xaragua did not order the invasions conducted between 1844 and 1856.
Xaragua assumes no command liability for those acts.
Xaragua nevertheless acknowledges the historical suffering they produced, condemns attacks against civilians and sacred institutions, rejects their use as territorial precedent and directs its institutions never to repeat them.
The Dominican Republic is a sovereign neighboring State.
Its independence is definitive.
Its territorial order is recognized.
Its Catholic people are not enemies of Xaragua.
The historical division of the island shall be administered through peace.
Its deeper cultural relations shall be maintained through consent.
No military doctrine of the nineteenth century shall govern the future of the two peoples.
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 35 — Institutional Application
This determination shall govern:
a. official Xaraguayan treatment of the 1805 campaign;
b. University instruction concerning Haitian–Dominican history;
c. diplomatic statements concerning the Dominican Republic;
d. commemoration of the Haitian Revolution;
e. military doctrine concerning the eastern boundary;
f. Catholic and cultural relations across the island; and
g. archival classification of prior State texts.
Article 36 — Depositary and Publication
This Act shall be:
a. deposited in the General Archives of the State;
b. registered by the Office of the Rector-President;
c. transmitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
d. incorporated into the historical doctrine of the University of Xaragua; and
e. published as the permanent Dominican–Xaraguayan Reconciliation Instrument.
Article 37 — Entry Into Force
This Act enters into force upon promulgation and shall remain permanent unless amended by an instrument of equal or superior constitutional authority.
DONE AND ESTABLISHED IN MIRAGOÂNE–XARAGUA
UNDER THE SEAL OF THE OFFICE OF THE RECTOR-PRESIDENT
PASCAL VIAU
RECTOR-PRESIDENT
PRELATE-FOUNDER
SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS AND PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA
SELECTED HISTORICAL, LEGAL AND CANONICAL AUTHORITIES
Primary and Early Historical Sources
Jean-Jacques Dessalines, Acte de l’Indépendance, Gonaïves, 1 January 1804.
Constitution impériale d’Haïti, 20 May 1805.
Thomas Madiou, Histoire d’Haïti, volumes concerning the Empire of Haiti, the eastern campaign and nineteenth-century governments.
Beaubrun Ardouin, Études sur l’histoire d’Haïti, volumes concerning the governments of Dessalines, Boyer, Rivière-Hérard, Pierrot and Soulouque.
José Gabriel García, Compendio de la historia de Santo Domingo, volumes concerning the campaign of 1805, the administration of 1822–1844 and Dominican independence.
Dominican Manifesto of 16 January 1844.
Dominican Declaration of Independence, 27 February 1844.
Constitution of the Dominican Republic, San Cristóbal, 6 November 1844.
Dominican Archival and Historical Works
Emilio Rodríguez Demorizi, Invasiones haitianas de 1801, 1805 y 1822, documentary compilation concerning the eastern campaigns and occupations.
Roberto Cassá, Antes y después del 27 de Febrero, Archivo General de la Nación, Dominican Republic. Archivo General de la Nación
Gerardo Cabrera Prieto, Documentos de la República Dominicana en el Archivo Nacional de Cuba, Archivo General de la Nación, including records concerning nineteenth-century military administration and border conflict. Archivo General de la Nación
Frank Moya Pons, The Dominican Republic: A National History, Markus Wiener Publishers.
Modern Historical Scholarship
Laurent Dubois, Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution, Harvard University Press, 2004.
Laurent Dubois, Haiti: The Aftershocks of History, Metropolitan Books, 2012.
Julia Gaffield, Haitian Connections in the Atlantic World: Recognition after Revolution, University of North Carolina Press, 2015.
Anne Eller, We Dream Together: Dominican Independence, Haiti, and the Fight for Caribbean Freedom, Duke University Press, 2016.
Ada Ferrer, Freedom’s Mirror: Cuba and Haiti in the Age of Revolution, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
David Nicholls, From Dessalines to Duvalier: Race, Colour and National Independence in Haiti, Rutgers University Press.
United States Department of State, historical diplomatic documentation concerning Haitian–Dominican relations and the final campaigns of 1855–1856. Office of the Historian
Florida International University, An Island Luminous, historical presentation concerning Dessalines’s 1805 invasion of the East. FIU Digital Library of the Caribbean
International and Indigenous Instruments
Charter of the United Nations, Articles 1(2), 2(4) and 33.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 3, 5, 26, 36, 40 and 46.
American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles III, VI, XXI, XXII and XXIII.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 1, 6, 18, 27 and 41.
American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 4, 12, 21 and 22.
Canonical Authorities
Code of Canon Law, Canon 1171: reverence owed to sacred objects. Holy See
Code of Canon Law, Canons 1210–1213: proper use, violation and protection of sacred places. Holy See
Code of Canon Law, Canon 1370: physical force against ecclesiastical authorities and clerics.
Code of Canon Law, Canon 1382: sacrilegious treatment of the consecrated species. Holy See
Francis, Apostolic Constitution Pascite Gregem Dei, 23 May 2021, promulgating the revised Book VI of the Code of Canon Law.

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS AND PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA
OFFICE OF THE RECTOR-PRESIDENT
SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
UNIVERSITY OF XARAGUA
GENERAL ARCHIVES OF THE STATE
SUPREME STATE HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL DETERMINATION
ON THE SUBVERSION OF THE DESSALINIAN IMPERIAL ORDER, THE RESTORATION OF COLONIAL ECONOMIC GOVERNMENT UNDER THE POST-1806 REPUBLIC, THE AGRARIAN SUBJECTION OF THE POPULATION, THE LAWFUL DOMINICAN SEPARATION OF 1844, THE SPANISH RECOLONIZATION OF 1861, THE ABANDONMENT OF DOMINICAN RESTORATION BY THE GEFFRARD ADMINISTRATION, THE MASSACRE OF THE BORDER POPULATION IN 1937, AND THE PERMANENT DOCTRINAL CONTINUITY OF XARAGUA
Date of Original Institution: 24 May 2025
Official Classification: Supreme Constitutional Doctrine — Dessalinian Historical Continuity Instrument — Southern Territorial Record — Dominican Sovereignty Recognition Act — Colonial Financial Accountability Determination
Competent Authority: Office of the Rector-President
Diplomatic Depositary: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Academic Depositary: University of Xaragua
Archival Depositary: General Archives of the State
Historical Scope: 1804–1937
Territorial Scope: Xaragua, the South, Grand’Anse, Nippes, the Western State, Santo Domingo and the Dominican Republic
Status: Permanent State Doctrine
PREAMBLE
The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous and Private State of Xaragua hereby enters into its permanent institutional constitutional, diplomatic, academic and archival record its official determination concerning the dismantling of the imperial order established under Emperor Jacques I, the reconstitution of colonial economic administration after 1806, the agrarian subjection imposed under President Jean-Pierre Boyer, the lawful emergence of the Dominican Republic, the Spanish recolonization of 1861, the conduct of the administration of Fabre Nicolas Geffrard, and the State-directed destruction of the Haitian and Haitian-Dominican border population in 1937.
The independence proclaimed on 1 January 1804 terminated French sovereignty over Saint-Domingue, destroyed the legal authority of the plantation regime and established a political order founded by a population that had defeated enslavement, racial subordination and an attempted French war of extermination.
The Imperial Constitution of 20 May 1805 converted that victory into an organized constitutional State.
The assassination of Jean-Jacques Dessalines on 17 October 1806 terminated the first imperial government and opened a prolonged institutional conflict concerning:
a. ownership of the former colonial estates;
b. distribution of agricultural land;
c. authority over national property;
d. organization of agricultural labor;
e. control of customs revenue;
f. political command of the South;
g. relations between military authority and landed elites;
h. the constitutional form of the post-revolutionary State; and
i. the territorial organization of the island.
The republican institutions established after 1806 preserved formal independence while reactivating central components of the colonial political economy: concentrated land control, compulsory agricultural production, administrative restriction of rural mobility, dependence upon export revenue, customs centralization, foreign credit and the political supremacy of property-holding authorities.
Xaragua recognizes the revolutionary abolition of slavery and the independence of 1804.
It rejects the transformation of emancipation into a system of administrative dependency.
It preserves the Dessalinian principle that national independence cannot be subordinated to former colonial property claims.
It recognizes the Dominican Republic as a sovereign neighboring State whose separation from the Boyer administration constituted a lawful act of national political determination.
PART I — THE DESSALINIAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER
Article 1 — Independence of 1804
The proclamation issued at Gonaïves on 1 January 1804 established the definitive termination of French colonial sovereignty within the liberated territory of Saint-Domingue.
The act constituted:
a. the destruction of the plantation colony as a lawful political order;
b. the permanent rejection of racial enslavement;
c. the creation of an independent public authority;
d. the assertion of territorial defense against French reconquest;
e. the restoration of political personality to the formerly enslaved population; and
f. the establishment of Haiti as an independent State.
Article 2 — Empire of Haiti
Jean-Jacques Dessalines was proclaimed Emperor under the name Jacques I in 1804.
The imperial government was established as a centralized military and constitutional authority responsible for:
a. preservation of independence;
b. territorial defense;
c. administration of former colonial property;
d. maintenance of agricultural production;
e. organization of the armed forces;
f. prevention of French restoration;
g. consolidation of public finance; and
h. international representation of the new State.
Article 3 — Imperial Constitution of 1805
The Imperial Constitution promulgated on 20 May 1805 constituted the principal public-law instrument of the Dessalinian State.
It affirmed:
a. the independence of Haiti;
b. the abolition of slavery;
c. the political unity of the State;
d. the territorial conception of the island as an indivisible political domain;
e. equal national classification under the constitutional designation of Black identity;
f. exclusion of the former colonial landholding order;
g. protection of national sovereignty; and
h. imperial executive authority.
The Constitution of 1805 is incorporated into the constitutional history of Xaragua as a foundational instrument of Black anti-colonial State formation.
Article 4 — Black and Indigenous Constitutional Foundation
The Dessalinian State arose within a territory whose population and political history had been formed through:
a. the prior Indigenous nations of the island;
b. the destruction and displacement of Taíno political orders;
c. African deportation through the transatlantic slave trade;
d. African and Indigenous survival within colonial territory;
e. marronage;
f. military resistance;
g. territorial reappropriation; and
h. the destruction of French colonial sovereignty.
The State of Xaragua classifies the independence of 1804 as an African, Indigenous, territorial and anti-colonial reconstitution of public authority.
PART II — THE ASSASSINATION OF EMPEROR JACQUES I AND THE RUPTURE OF 1806
Article 5 — Assassination at Pont-Rouge
Emperor Jacques I was assassinated at Pont-Rouge on 17 October 1806.
The assassination terminated the personal command of the founder of independence and preventedly exposed the unresolved conflict between:
a. imperial central authority;
b. military commanders;
c. southern political elites;
d. administrators of national property;
e. advocates of land redistribution;
f. defenders of large-scale agricultural production; and
g. regional authorities seeking control of the post-imperial State.
Article 6 — Constitutional Rupture
The death of Dessalines was followed by the dissolution of the unified imperial government.
The former imperial territory divided between:
a. the northern authority of Henri Christophe; and
b. the southern and western republican authority associated with Alexandre Pétion.
The division replaced the single imperial order with competing constitutional systems.
The northern government subsequently developed into the State and Kingdom of Haiti.
The southern government developed into the Republic of Haiti.
Article 7 — Joseph Balthazar Inginac
Joseph Balthazar Inginac occupied a central position in the administration of national property, public finance and presidential government.
His career connected:
a. the administration established under Dessalines;
b. the republican government of Alexandre Pétion;
c. the succession of Jean-Pierre Boyer;
d. the management of national estates;
e. the organization of agricultural production;
f. the development of the Rural Code; and
g. the consolidation of executive administration.
The State record identifies Inginac as one of the principal institutional carriers through whom the administrative techniques of the former colonial economy survived changes in constitutional form.
Article 8 — National Plantations and Concentrated Property
The post-independence government inherited hundreds of plantations, workshops, mills, warehouses, residences and agricultural properties formerly possessed by French colonists.
The administration of these properties determined:
a. the revenue of the State;
b. the economic position of military officers;
c. the distribution of land among cultivators;
d. access to export production;
e. control of sugar, coffee and other commodities;
f. the relationship between the State and the rural population; and
g. the formation of the post-revolutionary governing class.
The concentration of national property under military and administrative control preserved the habitation as an economic unit even after the legal abolition of slavery.
Article 9 — Purpose of the Post-1806 Transformation
The political transformation of 1806 prevented the consolidation of a stable Dessalinian settlement of land, military authority and national property.
The republican order transferred decisive authority toward institutions controlled by:
a. senior military officers;
b. urban administrators;
c. merchants;
d. holders of State concessions;
e. export interests;
f. customs officials; and
g. property-based political networks.
The change of constitutional title from Empire to Republic did not terminate the struggle over the material inheritance of the plantation colony.
PART III — SUPPRESSION OF SOUTHERN MILITARY AUTONOMY
Article 10 — Jean-Baptiste Goman
Jean-Baptiste Goman established and maintained an autonomous resistance in Grand’Anse against the authority of the southern republic.
His movement drew support from rural cultivators, former soldiers, maroons and communities opposed to the concentration of political and economic authority.
The Goman movement continued from the first decade after independence until its military suppression in 1820.
Article 11 — Political Meaning of the Goman Movement
The Goman movement represented:
a. resistance to centralized republican authority;
b. preservation of regional military autonomy;
c. opposition to the control of land and agricultural production;
d. continuation of maroon political organization;
e. defense of southern and Grand’Anse territorial power; and
f. refusal of unconditional submission to the Port-au-Prince government.
Its defeat removed one of the final organized southern centers capable of resisting the consolidation completed under Boyer.
Article 12 — Nicolas Geffrard
General Nicolas Geffrard, a principal officer of the independence struggle and father of Fabre Nicolas Geffrard, belonged to the military leadership of the South.
His death in 1806 removed a senior southern figure possessing revolutionary authority, territorial standing and military legitimacy.
The disappearance of Dessalines, Nicolas Geffrard and other senior officers altered the balance of power in favor of the post-imperial republican administration.
Article 13 — Henri Christophe
Henri Christophe maintained an independent northern State and subsequently established the Kingdom of Haiti.
His government preserved:
a. centralized executive command;
b. military organization;
c. monumental public construction;
d. regulated agricultural production;
e. diplomatic representation; and
f. a distinct constitutional order.
The collapse of the northern monarchy and Christophe’s death in 1820 enabled Boyer to incorporate the North into the republic.
Article 14 — Consolidation Under Boyer
By 1820, the government of Jean-Pierre Boyer had absorbed:
a. the southern republic inherited from Pétion;
b. the former autonomous northern order; and
c. the principal centers of rural and military resistance.
The political consolidation of the West preceded Boyer’s entry into into Santo Domingo in 1822 and the extension of his authority across the entire island.
PART IV — THE BOYER ADMINISTRATION AND THE RURAL ORDER
Article 15 — Accession of Jean-Pierre Boyer
Jean-Pierre Boyer succeeded Alexandre Pétion in 1818.
His administration continued until 1843 and constituted one of the longest centralized governments in nineteenth-century Caribbean history.
Boyer consolidated:
a. executive power;
b. military administration;
c. national property;
d. customs revenue;
e. agricultural regulation;
f. foreign negotiations;
g. authority over the North; and
h. government of the East after 1822.
Article 16 — Rural Code of 1826
The Rural Code of 1826 subjected agricultural production and the rural population to a comprehensive administrative regime.
The Code regulated:
a. classification of rural inhabitants;
b. attachment to agricultural occupations;
c. labor agreements;
d. movement from rural districts;
e. duties of landowners and cultivators;
f. authority of rural police;
g. enforcement by military and administrative officers;
h. division of agricultural production;
i. maintenance of plantations; and
j. punishment of unauthorized mobility and noncompliance.
Article 17 — State Classification of the Rural Code
The State of Xaragua classifies the Rural Code as a post-emancipation system of compulsory agricultural government.
The Code did not restore chattel slavery as a formal civil status.
It restored essential mechanisms of plantation control through:
a. territorial fixation of cultivators;
b. restriction of occupational choice;
c. administrative surveillance;
d. compulsory labor obligations;
e. military enforcement;
f. preservation of large agricultural units; and
g. subordination of personal mobility to export production.
The legal abolition of ownership over persons therefore coexisted with an administrative system designed to control their labor.
Article 18 — Colonial Economic Continuity
The Boyer system maintained an economy dependent upon:
a. coffee and agricultural exports;
b. customs receipts;
c. foreign merchants;
d. port administration;
e. concentrated land control;
f. rural labor discipline;
g. imported manufactured goods; and
h. external credit.
The republic possessed political independence while remaining economically structured around the commercial routes, export requirements and fiscal dependencies inherited from colonial rule.
PART V — AFRICAN-AMERICAN RECRUITMENT AND SAMANÁ
Article 19 — Recruitment Program of 1824
In 1824, the Boyer administration organized an international program encouraging free Black persons from the United States to settle in Haiti.
The government used official agents, American abolitionist networks, maritime transportation and public promises of land, citizenship, religious liberty and protection from racial persecution.
Several thousand migrants entered Haiti during the principal phase of the program.
Article 20 — State Classification of the Settlement Program
The African-American immigration program initiated under President Jean-Pierre Boyer in 1824 is classified as an organized State settlement and agricultural-labor policy operating within the coercive economic structure subsequently formalized by the Rural Code of 1826.
The program recruited free Black persons from the United States through official agents, transportation arrangements, promises of land, political freedom, religious liberty and protection from American racial persecution.
The public language of Black refuge coexisted with the Boyer administration’s material objectives of:
a. increasing the national population;
b. expanding agricultural production;
c. securing cultivators for rural districts;
d. restoring export revenue;
e. strengthening State occupation of underpopulated territories;
f. directing labor toward designated agricultural activity; and
g. consolidating political authority throughout the unified island.
The legal freedom of the migrants upon arrival did not establish complete economic autonomy.
Migrants entered an administrative environment characterized by insufficient preparation, disputed or inaccessible land allocations, inadequate public support, linguistic isolation, disease, material deprivation, restricted economic opportunities and growing State pressure upon agricultural workers.
A substantial proportion departed after the failure of the government to fulfill the material conditions represented during recruitment.
Those who remained established enduring communities, including the Samaná American community, while preserving English-language, Protestant, familial and cultural institutions derived from African-American life in the United States.
The continued existence of those communities does not extinguish the coercive economic purpose attached to the original State recruitment policy.
PART VI — THE FRENCH ORDINANCE OF 1825 AND THE COLONIAL INDEMNITY
Article 21 — French Naval Coercion
In 1825, King Charles X dispatched Baron de Mackau to Haiti with a French naval force.
The royal ordinance ordinance presented to President Boyer conditioned French recognition upon:
a. payment of 150 million francs to former colonists;
b. compensation for property lost through the Haitian Revolution, including claims derived from plantations and enslaved persons;
c. preferential customs treatment for French commerce; and
d. acceptance of a financial obligation imposed by the former colonial power.
Article 22 — Character of the Ordinance
The ordinance was not a treaty negotiated between equal sovereign authorities.
It was an externally drafted royal instrument delivered under military pressure.
Boyer accepted the ordinance and placed the revenues of the State at the service of the indemnity.
The original amount was later reduced, but the financial system established in 1825 produced prolonged dependence upon French lenders, merchants and financial institutions.
Article 23 — State Classification of the Debt
The State of Xaragua classifies the 1825 indemnity as:
a. a colonial financial exaction;
b. payment demanded by a former slaveholding power from the population that had defeated slavery;
c. conversion of colonial property claims into sovereign debt;
d. subordination of national customs revenue to foreign obligations;
e. a restriction upon substantive independence; and
f. a principal mechanism of Haiti’s nineteenth-century undercapitalization.
The indemnity did not lawfully compensate France for ownership of persons or for the loss of a colonial system founded upon slavery.
Article 24 — Louis-Auguste Daumec
The State of Xaragua preserves within its southern diplomatic and family archives the record of Louis-Auguste Daumec, identified as a senior imperial legal officer and envoy associated with the foreign relations of the Dessalinian order.
The record attributes to Daumec participation in a mission concerning the international position of the new State and relations with France, alongside Frémont and Rouanez.
Daumec did not return to the southern territorial order.
His unresolved disappearance is entered into the General Archives of the State as part of the interruption of imperial diplomatic continuity preceding the later Boyer settlement with France.
PART VII — THE EAST UNDER BOYER AND THE DOMINICAN SEPARATION
Article 25 — Entry Into Santo Domingo
Following the short-lived declaration of the Independent State of Spanish Haiti under José Núñez de Cáceres in 1821, Boyer entered Santo Domingo in February 1822 and extended his government over the East.
The Boyer administration applied a centralized political, military and fiscal order to the entire island.
Article 26 — Government of the East
The eastern territory was subjected to:
a. Haitian central administration;
b. military command;
c. application of Haitian legislation;
d. changes to landholding;
e. rural labor regulation;
f. taxation;
g. participation in the burden of the French indemnity;
h. restriction of eastern institutional autonomy;
i. measures affecting Catholic property and authority; and
j. political subordination to the Port-au-Prince executive.
Article 27 — Dominican Political Opposition
Eastern opposition developed through:
a. defense of local political authority;
b. protection of Spanish-language institutions;
c. resistance to centralized taxation;
d. defense of property and communal interests;
e. Catholic institutional continuity;
f. opposition to military government;
g. demands for representative authority; and
h. formation of an independent Dominican political project.
Article 28 — La Trinitaria
Juan Pablo Duarte and his associates established La Trinitaria on 16 July 1838.
The movement developed an organized doctrine of Dominican independence grounded in:
a. national political personality;
b. republican government;
c. territorial separation;
d. Catholic public identity;
e. resistance to foreign domination;
f. the historical memory of Indigenous resistance; and
g. the establishment of a sovereign Dominican State.
Article 29 — Indigenous Memory
Dominican independence incorporated the historical memory of the island’s Indigenous resistance, including Anacaona and Enriquillo.
The Trinitarian project did not constitute submission to Spanish colonialism or repudiation of Black emancipation.
It constituted the formation of an eastern national authority rejecting both external recolonization and government imposed from the West.
Article 30 — Revolution of 1843
The movement that overthrew Boyer in 1843 destabilized the unified administration and opened the final phase of Dominican separation.
Dominican participants cooperated with Haitian reformers against Boyer before establishing their distinct objective of complete political independence.
President Charles Rivière-Hérard attempted to suppress the Dominican independence movement and pursued its principal organizers.
Article 31 — Independence of 1844
The Manifesto of 16 January 1844 established the political case for separation.
On 27 February 1844, the Dominican Republic was proclaimed in Santo Domingo.
The act constituted:
a. termination of Haitian governmental authority in the East;
b. establishment of an independent Dominican State;
c. restoration of eastern political personality;
d. rejection of compulsory island-wide administration; and
e. commencement of the constitutional order of the Dominican Republic.
Article 32 — Xaraguayan Recognition
The State of Xaragua recognizes Dominican independence as a lawful act of political liberation.
The Dominican separation was not treason against Black freedom.
It was a rejection of centralized military, fiscal and administrative subordination under the Boyer system and its successors.
The Dominican Republic is recognized as a sovereign peer whose political existence does not extinguish cultural, Catholic, Indigenous or commercial relations across the island.
PART VIII — THE SPANISH ANNEXATION OF 1861
Article 33 — Act of Annexation
On 18 March 1861, President Pedro Santana proclaimed the annexation of the Dominican Republic to the Spanish Crown.
Spain accepted the annexation and restored colonial sovereignty over the Dominican territory.
The act terminated the independent constitutional authority proclaimed in 1844 and converted the Dominican Republic into a Spanish overseas possession.
Article 34 — Constitutional Character
The annexation violated the national principles established through:
a. the Manifesto of 16 January 1844;
b. the proclamation of 27 February 1844;
c. the Dominican Constitution of 6 November 1844;
d. the sacrifices made during the wars of independence; and
e. the political personality of the Dominican people.
The State of Xaragua classifies the annexation as a colonial restoration conducted through executive surrender of national sovereignty.
PART IX — FABRE NICOLAS GEFFRARD AND THE DOMINICAN RESTORATION QUESTION
Article 35 — Origin and Accession
Fabre Nicolas Geffrard was born in Anse-à-Veau on 19 September 1806.
He was the son of General Nicolas Geffrard and originated within the southern territorial order historically incorporated into Xaragua.
Geffrard served under Emperor Faustin I before leading the movement that overthrew the Second Empire in 1858–1859 and restored the Republic.
Article 36 — Initial Relations With Dominican Patriots
Francisco del Rosario Sánchez and other Dominican opponents of annexation entered Haitian territory and sought assistance from the Geffrard administration.
The administration permitted Dominican organization from Haitian territory and supplied a measure of material assistance, including access to arms and frontier support.
Sánchez entered Dominican territory in June 1861 to initiate resistance against the annexation.
Article 37 — Spanish Pressure and Withdrawal
Spanish military and diplomatic pressure was directed against Haiti following the use of Haitian territory by Dominican restoration forces.
The Geffrard administration withdrew its support while the Sánchez expedition remained operational.
The withdrawal disrupted the military position of the Dominican patriots, contributed to their attempted retreat and exposed the expedition to capture.
Article 38 — Execution of Sánchez
Francisco del Rosario Sánchez was captured, subjected to military proceedings and executed with his companions at San Juan de la Maguana on 4 July 1861.
His execution was carried out under the authority of the annexation government led by Pedro Santana.
Sánchez is recognized by Xaragua as:
a. a founder of Dominican independence;
b. an opponent of Spanish recolonization;
c. a defender of Dominican sovereignty;
d. a martyr of the Dominican national order; and
e. a representative of lawful resistance to colonial restoration.
Article 39 — State Determination on Geffrard
The State of Xaragua determines that the Geffrard administration possessed an anti-colonial duty arising from:
a. Haiti’s own foundation through resistance to European recolonization;
b. the direct security threat created by Spanish military restoration in the East;
c. Geffrard’s southern and revolutionary inheritance;
d. the presence of Dominican patriots seeking assistance; and
e. the obligation to oppose restoration of European sovereignty upon the island.
The initial assistance granted to Sánchez did not discharge that duty.
The subsequent withdrawal of support under Spanish pressure constituted abandonment of an active Dominican anti-colonial movement at the decisive stage of its operation.
The administration’s preservation of republican security was obtained at the expense of the Dominican force then resisting recolonization.
Article 40 — Republican Failure of Anti-Colonial Continuity
The conduct of the Geffrard administration is classified as evidence that of the institutional distance separating the post-1806 republic from the anti-colonial territorial doctrine of 1804–1805.
The republic preserved its own administration while permitting Spain to restore colonial sovereignty in the East.
This decision is permanently separated from the constitutional doctrine of Xaragua.
PART X — THE DOMINICAN WAR OF RESTORATION
Article 41 — Restoration Movement
Dominican resistance continued following the execution of Sánchez.
The War of Restoration began in 1863 and developed into a national military campaign against Spanish authority.
Principal leaders included:
a. Gregorio Luperón;
b. Santiago Rodríguez;
c. Benito Monción;
d. Gaspar Polanco;
e. José Antonio Salcedo;
f. Pedro Antonio Pimentel; and
g. additional civilian and military organizers.
Article 42 — Haitian Support
As the restoration conflict expanded and Spanish pressure affected the frontier, Haitian assistance to the Dominican resistance increased.
Haitian territory provided:
a. refuge;
b. communication;
c. arms;
d. logistical access;
e. commercial routes; and
f. strategic depth.
This later assistance is entered separately from the withdrawal that affected the Sánchez expedition of 1861.
Article 43 — Restoration of Dominican Sovereignty
Spain terminated its annexation and withdrew from the Dominican Republic in 1865.
The restoration re-established Dominican independence and confirmed that sovereignty surrendered through the Santana annexation had not extinguished the political will of the Dominican nation.
Article 44 — Xaraguayan Recognition of the Restoration
Xaragua recognizes the Dominican Restoration as:
a. a lawful war of national liberation;
b. resistance to European colonial government;
c. continuation of the independence proclaimed in 1844;
d. defense of Caribbean political autonomy;
e. restoration of Dominican constitutional personality; and
f. an event belonging to the common anti-colonial history of the island.
PART XI — THE BORDER ORDER AND THE MASSACRE OF 1937
Article 45 — Border Agreements
Haiti and the Dominican Republic concluded instruments intended to delimit and administer their international boundary, including the Treaty of 21 January 1929 and subsequent agreements completed during the 1930s.
The legal delimitation of the border did not extinguish the older social reality of the frontier.
Border communities continued to maintain:
a. family relations;
b. agricultural exchange;
c. livestock circulation;
d. local markets;
e. Kreyòl and Spanish bilingualism;
f. religious relations;
g. shared settlements; and
h. cultural practices extending across the boundary.
Article 46 — Trujillo Government
Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina exercised dictatorial power in the Dominican Republic through:
a. centralized military command;
b. control of the national police and armed forces;
c. personal domination of the governing party;
d. surveillance;
e. political violence;
f. control of public administration;
g. racialized nationalism; and
h. State-directed transformation of the frontier.
Article 47 — Massacre of October 1937
In October 1937, Dominican military and State authorities carried out the systematic killing of Haitians and persons of Haitian descent in Dominican frontier and Cibao territories.
The operation affected Dajabón, Monte Cristi, Santiago Rodríguez, the northern frontier and additional areas determined by the deployment of State forces.
The victims included:
a. agricultural workers;
b. smallholders;
c. traders;
d. domestic workers;
e. children;
f. women;
g. long-established frontier families;
h. persons born in the Dominican Republic; and
i. persons possessing mixed Haitian and Dominican community identities.
Article 48 — State Character of the Operation
The massacre was not an uncontrolled local dispute.
It was executed through the resources and command structure of the Trujillo State.
Its implementation involved:
a. military personnel;
b. public officials;
c. territorial identification of targeted populations;
d. road and border controls;
e. coordinated killing;
f. forced displacement;
g. destruction of bicultural frontier communities; and
h. official management of the subsequent diplomatic consequences.
Article 49 — Linguistic Identification
Historical memory associates the massacre with the use of Spanish pronunciation, including the word perejil, as an alleged method of identifying persons classified as Haitian.
The broader State operation did not depend upon one linguistic test.
Identification also occurred through:
a. residence;
b. appearance;
c. accent;
d. community knowledge;
e. documentation;
f. occupational status;
g. family association; and
h. designation by local authorities.
Article 50 — War of Border Dispossession
Within Xaraguayan doctrine, the 1937 massacre shall be formally classified as the War of Border Dispossession and State Neglect.
This classification records:
a. the organized use of State force;
b. the destruction of a transboundary population;
c. mass removal from inhabited territory;
d. racial and national classification of victims;
e. seizure or abandonment of property;
f. militarization of the frontier;
g. replacement of mixed border society by centralized territorial administration; and
h. failure of the Haitian government to provide timely and effective protection.
Article 51 — Responsibility of the Vincent Administration
President Sténio Vincent governed Haiti during the massacre.
The Vincent administration failed to mobilize an effective national response capable of:
a. protecting the threatened border population;
b. evacuating persons exposed to immediate danger;
c. securing the frontier;
d. documenting victims promptly;
e. compelling an immediate international investigation;
f. preserving the property claims of displaced families; and
g. ensuring direct compensation to survivors.
The government prioritized diplomatic containment and preservation of the existing intergovernmental relationship.
Article 52 — International Settlement
International pressure produced negotiations between Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
The settlement reached in 1938 provided for payment by the Dominican government while avoiding a complete judicial determination of individual responsibility.
The compensation system failed to provide full and direct redress to the victims and surviving families.
The massacre therefore remained incompletely adjudicated, incompletely compensated and institutionally under-recorded.
Article 53 — Territorial Memory
The massacre occurred within territories carrying Indigenous, African, Haitian, Dominican and transboundary historical memory.
The State of Xaragua records that the modern frontier crosses an older civilizational geography.
This historical fact does not alter the contemporary international boundary.
It establishes the duty to preserve the names, communities, cemeteries, family histories and cultural records of the populations destroyed or displaced in 1937.
PART XII — CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE OF XARAGUA
Article 54 — Dessalinian Continuity
Xaragua maintains doctrinal continuity with:
a. the independence of 1 January 1804;
b. the permanent abolition of slavery;
c. the rejection of French colonial sovereignty;
d. the constitutional foundation of 20 May 1805;
e. the defense of national land;
f. Black political authority;
g. Indigenous territorial continuity; and
h. resistance to foreign recolonization.
Article 55 — Nature of Continuity
Xaraguayan continuity is constitutional, territorial, ancestral, institutional and doctrinal.
It does not require adoption of every act committed by the imperial government or by later Haitian governments.
It does not transfer to Xaragua the administrative debts, international obligations or governmental acts of the Republic of Haiti.
Article 56 — Southern Political Order
The South, Grand’Anse, Nippes, Léogâne, Jacmel, Miragoâne, Les Cayes and their connected territories formed a distinct center of military, political, agricultural and intellectual power before and after independence.
Xaragua preserves this southern order as the territorial foundation of its own constitutional identity.
Article 57 — Rejection of the Post-1806 Agrarian Regime
Xaragua rejects:
a. compulsory plantation labor;
b. administrative fixation of cultivators;
c. criminalization of rural mobility;
d. concentration of national land for export interests;
e. customs dependence upon foreign creditors;
f. conversion of emancipation into labor discipline;
g. external financial control; and
h. government of communities without effective institutional participation.
Article 58 — Position Concerning the Republic of Haiti
The Republic of Haiti and the State of Xaragua constitute distinct institutional orders.
The Republic of Haiti maintains its international personality, diplomatic membership, civil administration and treaty relations.
Xaragua maintains its own Indigenous, Catholic, territorial, academic and constitutional doctrine.
No act of the Republic of Haiti automatically binds Xaragua without reception through a competent Xaraguayan instrument.
Article 59 — Position Concerning the Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic is recognized as a sovereign neighboring State.
Its independence of 1844 and restoration of 1865 constitute permanent components of the political order of the island.
Xaragua makes no claim to governmental authority over the Dominican Republic.
Relations shall proceed through:
a. mutual respect;
b. non-aggression;
c. cultural cooperation;
d. Catholic relations;
e. Indigenous communication;
f. lawful commerce;
g. academic exchange;
h. family continuity; and
i. protection of transboundary historical memory.
Article 60 — Repudiation of Compulsory Insular Unity
The constitutional language of the island’s indivisibility contained in the imperial order of 1805 shall not be interpreted by Xaragua as authority to abolish Dominican sovereignty.
The historical unity of the island constitutes:
a. a geographic fact;
b. an Indigenous civilizational history;
c. an ecological system;
d. a field of family relations;
e. a shared Catholic and Caribbean space; and
f. a basis for cooperation.
It does not constitute a contemporary mandate for political annexation.
PART XIII — PERMANENT STATE FINDINGS
Article 61 — Findings Concerning 1806
The State determines:
First, the assassination of Dessalines terminated the first unified government created by the independence revolution.
Second, the constitutional rupture enabled competing northern and southern regimes to replace the imperial order.
Third, control of land, plantations, customs and agricultural labor formed the material center of the post-1806 conflict.
Fourth, republican government preserved independence while restoring administrative mechanisms derived from the colonial economy.
Article 62 — Findings Concerning Boyer
The State further determines:
First, Boyer consolidated the North, West, South and East under one central administration.
Second, abolition remained legally permanent.
Third, the Rural Code imposed an extensive system of compulsory agricultural administration.
Fourth, the 1824 immigration program joined Black refuge to State objectives concerning settlement and agricultural labor.
Fifth, the 1825 French ordinance subordinated national revenue to the former colonial power.
Sixth, government of the East without durable political consent produced the conditions of Dominican separation.
Article 63 — Findings Concerning the Dominican Republic
The State determines:
First, La Trinitaria constituted an organized national liberation movement.
Second, the Dominican separation of 1844 was legally and politically distinct from restoration of Spanish colonial rule.
Third, Dominican independence did not repudiate the abolition of slavery.
Fourth, the annexation of 1861 violated the sovereignty established in 1844.
Fifth, Sánchez and the Restoration leaders acted in defense of Dominican national existence.
Sixth, the victory of 1865 permanently restored the Dominican Republic.
Article 64 — Findings Concerning Geffrard
The State determines:
First, Geffrard originated in the southern territory and inherited the name of a principal independence general.
Second, his administration initially facilitated Dominican resistance to Spanish annexation.
Third, it withdrew support under Spanish pressure during the Sánchez operation.
Fourth, the withdrawal materially weakened the Dominican expedition.
Fifth, later Haitian assistance contributed to the broader Restoration struggle.
Sixth, the initial abandonment and later support shall remain separately recorded.
Article 65 — Findings Concerning 1937
The State determines:
First, the massacre was ordered and implemented through the Trujillo State.
Second, its victims included Haitians, Haitian-Dominicans and members of long-established frontier communities.
Third, the operation destroyed a bicultural border society.
Fourth, the Vincent administration failed to provide adequate preventive protection and effective redress.
Fifth, the diplomatic settlement did not deliver full justice to the victims.
Sixth, the memory of the massacre belongs to the permanent historical record of the entire island.
PART XIV — ARCHIVAL AND ACADEMIC IMPLEMENTATION
Article 66 — Required Classification
The General Archives of the State shall maintain distinct documentary classifications for:
a. the Dessalinian Empire;
b. the assassination of 1806;
c. national property and plantation administration;
d. Goman and southern resistance;
e. the Rural Code of 1826;
f. African-American immigration;
g. the French indemnity;
h. the Boyer administration in the East;
i. La Trinitaria and Dominican independence;
j. the annexation of 1861;
k. Francisco del Rosario Sánchez;
l. the Dominican Restoration;
m. Geffrard’s Dominican policy;
n. the border treaties; and
o. the massacre of 1937.
Article 67 — Evidentiary Standard
Official historical claims shall identify:
a. the person or institution concerned;
b. the date or period;
c. the territory;
d. the governmental act;
e. the archival or published source; and
f. the distinction between primary evidence and later historical interpretation.
Article 68 — University Mandate
The University of Xaragua shall incorporate this instrument into teaching and research concerning:
a. Haitian constitutional history;
b. Dominican constitutional history;
c. post-emancipation labor systems;
d. colonial political economy;
e. Indigenous territorial continuity;
f. Caribbean State formation;
g. international debt;
h. border government;
i. Dominican–Haitian relations; and
j. Black and Indigenous sovereignty.
FINAL CONSTITUTIONAL DETERMINATION
Article 69 — Permanent Doctrine
The State of Xaragua preserves the independence of 1804.
It preserves the abolition of slavery.
It preserves the constitutional significance of the Empire of 1805.
It preserves the political history of the South.
It rejects the assassination-based destruction of the unified imperial government.
It rejects the restoration of plantation discipline through republican administration.
It rejects the Rural Code as a system of compulsory agricultural subjection.
It rejects the French indemnity as a lawful debt of emancipation.
It recognizes the Dominican separation of 1844.
It condemns the Spanish recolonization of 1861.
It recognizes Sánchez and the Restoration forces as lawful defenders of Dominican sovereignty.
It records the abandonment committed by the Geffrard administration during the Sánchez campaign.
It condemns the State-directed massacre of the border population in 1937.
It records the failure of the Vincent administration to protect and obtain full justice for the victims.
It recognizes the Dominican Republic as a sovereign peer.
It establishes Xaragua as the custodian of its own southern, Indigenous, Catholic and Dessalinian constitutional continuity.
Article 70 — Entry Into Force
This Act enters into force upon promulgation.
It shall govern the official constitutional, diplomatic, academic and archival position of Xaragua concerning the historical periods and institutions identified herein.
All prior instruments inconsistent with this consolidated determination are superseded.

DONE AND ESTABLISHED AT PORT-MIRAGOÂNE, XARAGUA ON 24 MAY 2025 PASCAL DESPUZEAU DAUMEC VIAU RECTOR-PRESIDENT PRELATE-FOUNDER SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS AND PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA SELECTED AUTHORITIES Acte de l’Indépendance d’Haïti, Gonaïves, 1 January 1804. Constitution impériale d’Haïti, 20 May 1805. Code rural d’Haïti, 1826. Ordonnance du Roi concernant l’indépendance d’Haïti, Charles X, 17 April 1825. Manifeste des peuples de la partie de l’Est de l’île ci-devant espagnole ou de Santo Domingo, 16 January 1844. Constitution of the Dominican Republic, San Cristóbal, 6 November 1844. Francisco del Rosario Sánchez, Proclamation against annexation, 1861. Beaubrun Ardouin, Études sur l’histoire d’Haïti. Thomas Madiou, Histoire d’Haïti. Joseph Saint-Rémy, historical works concerning the Haitian Revolution and the governments established after independence. Jean Price-Mars, La République d’Haïti et la République Dominicaine. Michel Hector, studies concerning Haitian peasant movements and political authority. Jean Casimir, La culture opprimée. Laurent Dubois, Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution, Harvard University Press, 2004. Laurent Dubois, Haiti: The Aftershocks of History, Metropolitan Books, 2012. Marlene L. Daut, works concerning the Haitian Revolution, the Kingdom of Haiti and the French indemnity. Julia Gaffield, Haitian Connections in the Atlantic World: Recognition after Revolution, University of North Carolina Press, 2015. Sara Fanning, Caribbean Crossing: African Americans and the Haitian Emigration Movement, New York University Press, 2015. Frank Moya Pons, The Dominican Republic: A National History. Roberto Cassá, works concerning Francisco del Rosario Sánchez, Dominican independence and the Restoration. Anne Eller, We Dream Together: Dominican Independence, Haiti, and the Fight for Caribbean Freedom, Duke University Press, 2016. Emilio Rodríguez Demorizi, documentary works concerning Dominican independence, annexation and restoration. Richard Lee Turits, “A World Destroyed, A Nation Imposed: The 1937 Haitian Massacre in the Dominican Republic,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 2002. Lauren Derby, “Haitians, Magic, and Money: Raza and Society in the Haitian-Dominican Borderlands, 1900–1937,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1994. Richard Lee Turits and Lauren Derby, “Haitian-Dominican History and the 1937 Haitian Massacre,” in The Border of Lights Reader, Amherst College Press, 2021. Edward Paulino, Dividing Hispaniola: The Dominican Republic’s Border Campaign against Haiti, 1930–1961, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2016. Eric Paul Roorda, The Dictator Next Door: The Good Neighbor Policy and the Trujillo Regime, Duke University Press. Sabine F. Cadeau, More Than a Massacre: Racial Violence and Citizenship in the Haitian-Dominican Borderlands, Cambridge University Press, 2022. Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Arbitration between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, 1929. Haitian–Dominican border agreements and protocols concluded between 1929 and 1936. Agreement between Haiti and the Dominican Republic concerning the events of 1937, Washington, 31 January 1938. Charter of the United Nations, Articles 1(2), 2(4), 33 and 55. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 3, 4, 5, 26, 31, 36, 37, 40 and 46. American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles III, VI, XIII, XIV, XXI, XXII and XXIII. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 1, 6, 18 and 27. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 14 December 1960. Codex Iuris Canonici, Canons 215, 216, 298, 299, 321–326 and 807–814.

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS AND PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA
OFFICE OF THE RECTOR-PRESIDENT
SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
UNIVERSITY OF XARAGUA
GENERAL ARCHIVES OF THE STATE
SUPREME STATE HISTORICAL, TERRITORIAL AND ECCLESIAL DETERMINATION
ON THE HISTORICAL RESENTMENT OF THE DOMINICAN PEOPLE, THE COLONIAL PROVOCATIONS PRECEDING THE EASTERN CAMPAIGN OF 1805, THE CIVILIAN AND RELIGIOUS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED DURING THAT CAMPAIGN, THE JURIDICAL ERROR OF THE ASSASSINATION OF EMPEROR JACQUES I, THE NON-PARTICIPATION OF THE XARAGUAYAN NATION AND DESIGNATED MARITIME TERRITORIES, THE MASSACRE OF THE BORDER POPULATION IN 1937, AND THE PERMANENT DOCTRINE OF DOMINICAN–XARAGUAYAN PEACE
Official Classification: Supreme Historical Determination — Dominican–Xaraguayan Reconciliation Act — Catholic Insular Concord Instrument — Territorial Non-Aggression Doctrine — Border Memory and Accountability Record
Competent Authority: Office of the Rector-President
Diplomatic Depositary: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Academic Depositary: University of Xaragua
Archival Depositary: General Archives of the State
Historical Scope: 1492–1938
Territorial Scope: Xaragua, Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, the North-West Peninsula, La Gonâve, Tortuga and the transboundary regions of Hispaniola
Status: Permanent State Doctrine
PREAMBLE
The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous and Private State of Xaragua hereby establishes its permanent constitutional and historical position concerning the relationship between the peoples of the western, southern and eastern territories of Hispaniola.
The State recognizes that Dominican political memory was formed through successive experiences of foreign rule, military occupation, attacks against eastern towns, government under the Boyer administration, wars of independence, Spanish recolonization, restoration and twentieth-century border militarization.
The State further recognizes that the events of 1805 occupy a central place within Dominican historical memory.
The eastern campaign was initiated against the surviving French colonial authority of General Jean-Louis Ferrand. Its declared military purpose arose from the continued presence of a Napoleonic slaveholding regime in Santo Domingo, the re-enslavement of free persons, the cross-border seizure of Black inhabitants and the continuing possibility that eastern territory would be used for the reconquest of independent Haiti.
That strategic cause did not authorize the killing of Dominican civilians, the destruction of eastern towns, the violation of churches, the seizure of non-combatants or the punishment of an entire Spanish-speaking Catholic population for the acts of French colonial authorities.
Xaragua therefore establishes the following permanent distinctions:
a. the French colonial government of General Ferrand was an active slaveholding and re-enslaving regime;
b. independent Haiti possessed a legitimate security interest in preventing French reconquest;
c. the decision to attack Ferrand’s military authority had an identifiable anti-colonial basis;
d. the violence inflicted upon civilians and sacred institutions exceeded that military objective;
e. the population of Xaragua possessed no independent command authority over the campaign;
f. the North-West Peninsula, La Gonâve and Tortuga did not constitute operational centers of the eastern land campaign;
g. contemporary Haitian migration into the Dominican Republic does not fall under Xaraguayan command or population policy;
h. the Dominican Republic possesses permanent sovereignty over its territory; and
i. Dominican–Xaraguayan relations shall proceed through historical recognition, Catholic fraternity, cultural cooperation, regulated mobility and absolute non-aggression.
PART I — THE HISTORICAL FORMATION OF THE DOMINICAN MEMORY OF WESTERN AUTHORITY
Article 1 — Object of the Determination
This Act establishes the official Xaraguayan classification of the historical causes underlying Dominican resentment toward successive governments and armed forces originating from the western part of the island.
The resentment addressed herein concerns:
a. the eastern campaign of 1805;
b. the destruction of Moca, Santiago and other towns;
c. violations committed against Catholic churches and civilians;
d. the administration of the East from 1822 to 1844;
e. the wars conducted after Dominican independence;
f. recurring disputes concerning the international boundary;
g. unregulated migration;
h. unequal distribution of the costs of migration and border administration; and
i. the failure of previous governments to establish a complete historical settlement.
Article 2 — Historical Memory of 1805
The campaign of 1805 became a permanent component of Dominican regional, ecclesiastical, municipal and family memory.
Its historical effect did not arise solely from the number of persons killed.
It arose from:
a. attacks upon non-combatants;
b. destruction of inhabited towns;
c. burning of houses and public buildings;
d. killing within sacred places;
e. forced displacement;
f. removal of eastern inhabitants toward western territory;
g. destruction of livestock and agricultural resources;
h. collapse of municipal authority; and
i. the use of punitive warfare against a population not identical to the French military command.
Article 3 — Principal Affected Territories
The principal eastern territories identified in the historical record include:
a. Santiago de los Caballeros;
b. Moca;
c. La Vega;
d. San Francisco de Macorís;
e. Cotuí;
f. San Juan;
g. Azua;
h. the approaches to Santo Domingo; and
i. settlements located upon the northern and southern lines of advance and retreat.
Moca and Santiago occupy a particular place in Dominican national memory because of the concentration of violence attributed to the retreating forces and the killing of inhabitants who had gathered in or near churches.
Article 4 — Catholic Character of the Eastern Population
The eastern population was predominantly Spanish-speaking and Catholic.
Its institutions included:
a. parishes;
b. confraternities;
c. municipal councils;
d. rural settlements;
e. cattle-raising communities;
f. family estates;
g. local clergy;
h. Catholic burial grounds; and
i. ecclesiastical records of baptism, marriage and death.
The destruction of these institutions was understood by the eastern population as an attack upon local society, public order and Catholic continuity.
Article 5 — Transmission of Resentment
The memory of 1805 was transmitted through:
a. parish records;
b. municipal histories;
c. family testimony;
d. nineteenth-century chronicles;
e. Dominican constitutional narratives;
f. regional commemorations;
g. accounts of the wars of 1844–1856;
h. educational materials; and
i. political discourse concerning the border.
The persistence of this memory contributed to the formation of a Dominican national identity explicitly opposed to renewed government from the West.
PART II — FRENCH COLONIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE EAST AND THE PROVOCATION OF 1805
Article 6 — French Authority in Santo Domingo
Spain ceded Santo Domingo to France under the Treaty of Basel of 22 July 1795.
French authority remained uneven until Toussaint Louverture entered the East in 1801 and proclaimed abolition throughout the island.
Napoleon Bonaparte’s expedition of 1802 displaced the Louverture administration and restored French military government.
After the defeat of French forces in western Saint-Domingue and the proclamation of Haitian independence on 1 January 1804, General Jean-Louis Ferrand continued to govern Santo Domingo in the name of France.
Article 7 — Restoration of Slavery by the Napoleonic Order
The French National Convention had abolished slavery in the French colonies on 4 February 1794.
Napoleonic policy restored slavery within parts of the French colonial empire in 1802 and sought to re-establish metropolitan authority throughout the Caribbean.
The military expedition against Saint-Domingue included:
a. deportation of revolutionary leaders;
b. execution of Black officers;
c. mass killing;
d. drowning and summary punishment;
e. disarmament;
f. restoration of racial hierarchy; and
g. preparation for the re-establishment of forced labor and slavery.
The independent Haitian State was therefore established under the immediate threat of renewed French invasion and re-enslavement.
Article 8 — Ferrand’s Re-Enslavement Regime
Between 1804 and 1809, the administration of General Ferrand operated as a slaveholding colonial government.
Its policies included:
a. reactivation of slavery within Santo Domingo;
b. denial of freedom acquired under the earlier emancipation order;
c. seizure of Black persons;
d. sale and deportation of captives;
e. commercial relations with slaveholding jurisdictions;
f. prohibition of unauthorized commerce with independent Haiti;
g. punishment of persons maintaining relations with the western State; and
h. use of the eastern territory as a remaining French imperial position upon the island.
Ferrand’s administration converted the boundary into an active zone of capture, re-enslavement and military confrontation.
Article 9 — Threat to Haitian Sovereignty
The continued existence of a French military government in Santo Domingo created a direct threat to independent Haiti.
The threat consisted of:
a. a territorial base for French forces;
b. access to Caribbean naval support;
c. capacity to organize cross-border operations;
d. capture and re-enslavement of free Black persons;
e. restoration of colonial commerce;
f. communication with Cuba, Puerto Rico and other slaveholding territories;
g. refusal to recognize Haitian independence; and
h. the strategic possibility of renewed Napoleonic intervention.
Article 10 — Lawful Military Objective
The destruction of Ferrand’s slaveholding military capacity constituted a lawful anti-colonial objective of the Haitian State.
The liberation of persons held or re-enslaved under French authority constituted an extension of the emancipatory purpose of the Haitian Revolution.
The termination of the French military position in Santo Domingo was therefore connected to:
a. national defense;
b. abolition;
c. protection of emancipated persons;
d. territorial security;
e. prevention of reconquest; and
f. destruction of a remaining Napoleonic colonial base.
PART III — THE EASTERN CAMPAIGN OF 1805
Article 11 — Commencement of the Campaign
In February 1805, Emperor Jacques I ordered the advance against French-controlled Santo Domingo.
The operation proceeded through:
a. a northern army commanded by Henri Christophe; and
b. a southern army under the direct authority of Emperor Jacques I.
The combined force advanced toward Santo Domingo through the principal interior routes of the island.
Article 12 — Siege of Santo Domingo
The imperial forces surrounded Santo Domingo in March 1805.
The fortified city remained under Ferrand’s authority.
The besieging army lacked naval control and could not isolate the city from maritime reinforcement.
The arrival of French naval forces altered the strategic position and compelled the imperial army to terminate the siege.
Article 13 — Retreat
The retreat from Santo Domingo became a campaign of destruction along the northern and southern routes.
During that retreat:
a. towns were burned;
b. civilian property was destroyed;
c. inhabitants were killed;
d. livestock and provisions were seized;
e. churches were entered and violated;
f. civilians were forcibly removed;
g. municipal structures were dismantled; and
h. more than one thousand eastern inhabitants were transported into Haitian territory.
Article 14 — Moca
The killings committed at Moca constitute one of the principal atrocities of the campaign.
Inhabitants assembled within a church under an expectation of protection.
Military forces entered the sacred space and killed civilians.
The event is permanently entered in Dominican history as the Degüello de Moca.
Article 15 — Santiago
Santiago was subjected to military occupation, destruction, killing, confiscation and forced removal of inhabitants.
Municipal, private and ecclesiastical property was affected.
The memory of the campaign became a permanent component of Cibao political consciousness.
Article 16 — San Juan and the Southern Route
San Juan and the settlements upon the southern line of advance and retreat experienced:
a. military requisition;
b. displacement;
c. destruction of property;
d. killing;
e. agricultural loss; and
f. disruption of parish and municipal life.
The southern route connected the military withdrawal to the frontier approaches leading toward the western territory.
Article 17 — Distinction Between French Authority and Dominican Civilians
The Ferrand administration and the eastern civilian population constituted separate categories.
The French administration exercised imperial military command.
The local population consisted of Spanish-speaking Catholics, free Black inhabitants, mixed-race families, farmers, cattle raisers, artisans, clergy, merchants and municipal officers.
Collective treatment of that population as an extension of the French enemy constituted a failure of military distinction and imperial judgment.
PART IV — CANONICAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE VIOLATIONS
Article 18 — Sacred Places
A church constitutes a sacred place dedicated to divine worship.
Killing, pillage, destruction and military punishment within a church violate the sacred character of the place.
The attacks recorded at Moca and other eastern religious sites are classified as grave violations of Catholic ecclesial order.
Article 19 — Sacred Objects and the Eucharist
Sacred vessels, altars, tabernacles, consecrated species, parish records and objects dedicated to worship possess a status distinct from ordinary military property.
Their profanation, destruction or removal for sacrilegious purposes constitutes an offense against divine worship and the Catholic community.
Article 20 — Applicable Canonical Principles
The State invokes the enduring principles presently expressed in:
a. Canon 1171 concerning reverence for sacred objects;
b. Canon 1210 concerning conduct permitted within sacred places;
c. Canon 1211 concerning grave violations committed in sacred places;
d. Canon 1370 concerning physical force against ecclesiastical authorities and clerics; and
e. Canon 1382 concerning sacrilegious treatment of the consecrated species.
Article 21 — Catholic Equality
Catholic inhabitants of Moca, Santiago, San Juan and the remaining eastern towns belonged to the same sacramental communion as the Catholic faithful of Miragoâne, Léogâne, Jacmel and Les Cayes.
Political conflict did not cancel:
a. baptismal dignity;
b. the sacred character of churches;
c. the immunity of non-combatants;
d. the ministry of clergy;
e. the sanctity of human life; or
f. the duty to distinguish military authority from civilian population.
PART V — DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE EVENTS OF 1804 AND 1805
Article 22 — French Population Remaining in Haiti
Following independence, the government of Dessalines ordered the killing of much of the remaining French population in 1804.
The operation affected former colonists, property holders, administrators, merchants, women and children.
Exemptions were granted to designated categories, including certain Polish soldiers, Germans, physicians and persons placed under specific protection.
Article 23 — Historical Cause of the 1804 Extermination Order
The order arose from:
a. centuries of plantation slavery;
b. the Code Noir;
c. torture and execution of enslaved persons;
d. the Leclerc expedition;
e. the restoration of slavery elsewhere by France;
f. the exterminatory warfare of Rochambeau;
g. fear of internal collaboration with reconquest; and
h. the determination to prevent restoration of the planter class.
Article 24 — State Classification of 1804
Xaragua classifies the killings of 1804 as a policy of revolutionary extermination directed against a population collectively identified with the defeated colonial order.
The operation was presented by the imperial government as a definitive security measure against French return.
Its historical origin lies in slavery, colonial extermination and the immediate threat of reconquest.
Its execution included the killing of persons who were not active combatants.
Article 25 — Distinction From 1805
The campaign of 1805 constituted a separate military and territorial event.
The central distinction is established as follows:
a. the events of 1804 occurred within the newly independent western State after defeat of French colonial authority;
b. the campaign of 1805 entered a separate eastern society still governed by a French military administration;
c. the eastern population was not collectively identical to the French planter class;
d. the campaign required distinction between Ferrand’s forces and local civilians; and
e. violence against eastern Catholic inhabitants cannot be absorbed into the security classification applied to the remaining French population in 1804.
PART VI — FAILURE OF IMPERIAL JUDGMENT AND THE ASSASSINATION OF 1806
Article 26 — Concentration of Imperial Authority
Between 1804 and 1806, Emperor Jacques I exercised centralized authority over:
a. the armed forces;
b. national property;
c. agricultural production;
d. territorial administration;
e. foreign relations;
f. public finance;
g. military appointments; and
h. national security.
Article 27 — Breakdown of Imperial Judgment
The eastern campaign demonstrated a breakdown in the distinction between:
a. French colonial command and eastern civilian society;
b. military necessity and collective punishment;
c. national defense and territorial devastation;
d. revolutionary memory and present responsibility;
e. imperial unity and political consent; and
f. punishment of the enemy and violation of sacred institutions.
This breakdown constituted a crisis of imperial command.
Article 28 — Responsibility of the Command Structure
Responsibility did not rest exclusively upon the Emperor.
Senior generals, officers and administrators participated in the preparation, execution and enforcement of military orders.
The imperial command failed collectively to:
a. restrain violence;
b. protect civilians;
c. preserve churches;
d. distinguish local inhabitants from French forces;
e. prevent forced removals; and
f. establish a lawful occupation policy.
Article 29 — Assassination at Pont-Rouge
Emperor Jacques I was assassinated at Pont-Rouge on 17 October 1806 by forces connected to his own military and political government.
The assassination was not preceded by:
a. a constitutional deposition;
b. an imperial tribunal;
c. a public statement of charges;
d. a formal regency;
e. a competent criminal judgment;
f. a canonical proceeding; or
g. an organized transfer of sovereign authority.
Article 30 — Juridical Classification of the Assassination
The State of Xaragua classifies the assassination as:
a. regicide;
b. an unlawful termination of constituted authority;
c. a military conspiracy;
d. a rupture of imperial constitutional continuity;
e. a substitution of execution for judgment; and
f. the opening act of the post-1806 territorial division.
The crimes and failures of the Emperor did not create an unrestricted private or military right to kill him.
Article 31 — Lawful Alternative
The proper institutional response required:
a. removal from active military command;
b. establishment of a regency or provisional authority;
c. preservation of the State archives;
d. formal presentation of charges;
e. investigation of the eastern campaign;
f. protection of the person of the Emperor;
g. judicial determination; and
h. an organized constitutional succession.
Article 32 — Permanent Dessalinian Classification
Xaragua recognizes Jean-Jacques Dessalines as:
a. General-in-Chief of the Indigenous Army;
b. founder of Haitian independence;
c. Emperor Jacques I;
d. destroyer of French colonial sovereignty;
e. constitutional founder of the State of 1805;
f. responsible sovereign authority during the eastern campaign; and
g. victim of an unlawful assassination in 1806.
His founding dignity is preserved.
His acts remain subject to State historical judgment.
PART VII — HISTORICAL AND TERRITORIAL POSITION OF XARAGUA
Article 33 — Precolonial Xaragua
Before European occupation, Xaragua constituted one of the principal Indigenous political orders of the island.
Its territorial and civilizational system included:
a. Indigenous government;
b. agricultural production;
c. maritime relations;
d. family and kinship organization;
e. ceremonial authority;
f. regional alliances;
g. territorial routes; and
h. the political leadership associated with Bohechío and Anacaona.
Article 34 — Spanish Conquest
Spanish colonial expansion subjected the Indigenous territories of the island to military conquest, forced labor, religious administration and Crown government.
The western and southwestern territories entered the jurisdictional framework of Santo Domingo and the Spanish imperial system.
The destruction of the Indigenous political order did not extinguish Xaragua’s ancestral identity.
Article 35 — Southwestern Iberian-Catholic Formation
Before the definitive consolidation of French Saint-Domingue, the southwestern region remained within the broader Spanish and Catholic order of Hispaniola.
Its historical formation included:
a. Spanish territorial claims;
b. Catholic missions;
c. parish organization;
d. Iberian legal institutions;
e. Indigenous and African populations;
f. cattle-raising and maritime exchange;
g. frontier settlements; and
h. communication with Santo Domingo and other Spanish Caribbean territories.
Article 36 — French Expansion
French privateers, buccaneers, settlers and colonial companies expanded from Tortuga and the western littoral during the seventeenth century.
The Peace of Ryswick of 1697 recognized French possession in the western part of Hispaniola.
French occupation subsequently expanded and consolidated the plantation colony of Saint-Domingue, including the southern and western territories later incorporated into Haiti.
The French colonial order did not erase the preceding Indigenous, Spanish and Catholic layers of the southwestern region.
Article 37 — Xaraguayan Historical Composition
The historical identity of Xaragua therefore incorporates:
a. precolonial Indigenous sovereignty;
b. Taíno territorial memory;
c. Spanish-Catholic institutional formation;
d. African survival and territorial rooting;
e. resistance to slavery;
f. maroon organization;
g. French colonial occupation;
h. Haitian revolutionary liberation; and
i. southern post-independence political continuity.
Article 38 — Non-Participation in the Eastern Campaign
The State of Xaragua declares that the people of its southern territorial order possessed no independent constitutional authority over the imperial campaign of 1805.
They did not:
a. issue the order to invade Santo Domingo;
b. determine the strategic plan;
c. command the northern column;
d. govern the occupied eastern towns;
e. authorize the killing of civilians;
f. sanction attacks upon churches; or
g. possess a sovereign mechanism through which the campaign could be approved or rejected.
Article 39 — No Collective Responsibility
The Xaraguayan population shall not bear collective responsibility for acts ordered and executed through imperial military command without separate Xaraguayan authorization.
Responsibility shall be attributed to:
a. identified commanders;
b. participating military units;
c. officers issuing or enforcing orders;
d. persons committing specific acts;
e. the imperial institutions exercising control; and
f. documented local collaborators.
PART VIII — EXCLUSION OF THE NORTH-WEST, LA GONÂVE AND TORTUGA
Article 40 — Designated Territories
The following territories are formally distinguished from the operational organization of the eastern land campaign:
a. the North-West Peninsula, including Port-de-Paix, Jean-Rabel and Môle-Saint-Nicolas;
b. La Gonâve; and
c. Tortuga.
Article 41 — North-West Peninsula
The North-West Peninsula possessed a strategic orientation toward:
a. maritime defense;
b. Môle-Saint-Nicolas;
c. the Windward Passage;
d. coastal security;
e. local agricultural production;
f. fishing;
g. port administration; and
h. stabilization following the revolutionary war.
It did not constitute the principal launch center of the columns advancing through the Cibao or the southern interior.
Article 42 — La Gonâve
La Gonâve was not a territorial base for the siege of Santo Domingo.
Its population and settlements were geographically separated from the eastern land routes.
The island did not exercise command authority over Dessalines, Christophe or the imperial army.
Article 43 — Tortuga
Tortuga’s historical function was principally maritime.
Its earlier roles included:
a. Spanish occupation;
b. buccaneer settlement;
c. French privateering;
d. maritime commerce;
e. coastal raiding; and
f. connection to the northern colony.
Tortuga did not constitute an operational center of the imperial march upon Santo Domingo in 1805.
Article 44 — Formal Territorial Dissociation
The North-West Peninsula, La Gonâve and Tortuga are formally excluded from collective territorial attribution for the civilian and religious violations committed in the eastern towns during the campaign.
Their incorporation into the contemporary territorial doctrine of Xaragua shall not be interpreted as an assumption of historical responsibility for military operations they neither commanded nor institutionally authorized.
Article 45 — Contemporary Mission
These territories are assigned the following contemporary functions:
a. maritime communication;
b. historical preservation;
c. Catholic and Indigenous memory;
d. border and coastal peace;
e. regulated commerce;
f. environmental stewardship;
g. cultural exchange; and
h. Dominican–Xaraguayan reconciliation.
PART IX — DOMINICAN NATIONAL IDENTITY AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF 1822–1844
Article 46 — Formation Through Political Distinction
The Dominican Republic emerged through the political separation of the eastern population from the centralized government established by Jean-Pierre Boyer.
Dominican national formation drew upon:
a. Spanish language;
b. Catholic institutional continuity;
c. eastern municipal life;
d. local property relations;
e. Indigenous memory;
f. African and mixed-race social formation;
g. resistance to military centralization; and
h. the demand for independent government.
Article 47 — Boyer Administration
The administration extended throughout the East from 1822 to 1844.
Its institutional measures included:
a. abolition of slavery;
b. application of Haitian law;
c. territorial administration;
d. military government;
e. taxation;
f. rural labor regulation;
g. measures affecting Church property;
h. participation in the burden created by the French indemnity; and
i. subordination of eastern public authority to the central executive.
Article 48 — Dominican Separation
The Dominican movement did not arise solely from ethnic hostility.
It arose from disputes concerning:
a. political representation;
b. local autonomy;
c. taxation;
d. military administration;
e. property;
f. religion;
g. language;
h. economic policy; and
i. the right of the eastern population to establish its own State.
Article 49 — La Trinitaria
La Trinitaria, established under Juan Pablo Duarte in 1838, organized the political project that resulted in the proclamation of the Dominican Republic on 27 February 1844.
Duarte, Francisco del Rosario Sánchez and Ramón Matías Mella are recognized as founders of a sovereign Dominican constitutional order.
Article 50 — Permanent Legitimacy of Dominican Independence
Xaragua recognizes Dominican independence as:
a. a lawful act of political separation;
b. a rejection of imposed centralized administration;
c. an exercise of national self-determination;
d. the establishment of an eastern sovereign State;
e. a development distinct from restoration of Spanish colonial rule; and
f. a permanent fact of the island’s political order.
PART X — MODERN MIGRATION AND DOMINICAN STATE CAPACITY
Article 51 — Contemporary Migration
The Dominican Republic receives a large population originating from Haiti through:
a. authorized residence;
b. temporary labor;
c. seasonal agricultural employment;
d. construction;
e. commerce;
f. family movement;
g. irregular entry; and
h. humanitarian displacement.
Official statistical counts and broader public estimates differ substantially.
Dominican political discourse frequently places the total Haitian and Haitian-origin population between several hundred thousand and more than one million persons, depending upon the categories, dates and methods employed.
Article 52 — Dominican Administrative Burden
Large-scale and unregulated migration affects:
a. border administration;
b. civil documentation;
c. hospitals;
d. maternity services;
e. schools;
f. housing;
g. informal employment;
h. agriculture;
i. construction;
j. public security; and
k. municipal resources.
The Dominican State possesses the authority to regulate entry, residence, employment and removal within its own territory.
Article 53 — Relationship Between Migration and Historical Memory
Contemporary migration is interpreted by sectors of Dominican society through the historical memory of:
a. the campaign of 1805;
b. the administration of 1822–1844;
c. the wars following independence;
d. border disputes;
e. demographic insecurity; and
f. the perception that Dominican historical suffering has not been acknowledged.
The resulting resentment cannot be reduced exclusively to one cause.
It combines history, sovereignty, public services, labor competition, border administration, racial classification and national identity.
Article 54 — Absence of Inherited Individual Responsibility
Contemporary migrants are not individual authors of the military acts committed in 1805.
The State nevertheless recognizes that denial or institutional silence concerning the historical events intensifies Dominican distrust.
Historical acknowledgment and present migration administration therefore constitute separate but connected fields of public policy.
Article 55 — Xaraguayan Dissociation
Xaragua fully dissociates itself from unregulated migration into the Dominican Republic.
The State of Xaragua does not:
a. organize mass movement toward Dominican territory;
b. direct irregular border crossings;
c. claim a right of demographic settlement;
d. encourage occupation of Dominican land;
e. transfer responsibility for its population to Dominican public services; or
f. classify irregular migration as a form of territorial sovereignty.
Article 56 — Xaraguayan Population Policy
Xaraguayan population policy is founded upon:
a. territorial rootedness;
b. internal community development;
c. local production;
d. family registration;
e. regulated movement;
f. lawful documentation;
g. economic reconstruction of the South;
h. maritime and territorial employment; and
i. the principle that Xaraguayan communities shall be strengthened within their own lands.
The permanent doctrine is established:
The people of Xaragua shall build within Xaragua.
PART XI — THE MASSACRE OF THE BORDER POPULATION IN 1937
Article 57 — Trujillo Order
In October 1937, the government of Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina directed a systematic operation against Haitians and persons of Haitian descent residing in Dominican frontier and Cibao territories.
The operation was executed through military personnel, public authorities and the territorial machinery of the Dominican State.
Article 58 — Victims
The victims included:
a. Haitian nationals;
b. Dominican-born persons of Haitian ancestry;
c. agricultural workers;
d. smallholders;
e. traders;
f. women;
g. children;
h. long-established border families; and
i. members of bilingual and bicultural communities.
Article 59 — State Character
The massacre was not a spontaneous conflict between local populations.
It constituted a State operation involving:
a. military deployment;
b. identification of targeted persons;
c. restriction of movement;
d. coordinated killing;
e. forced displacement;
f. concealment;
g. diplomatic containment; and
h. subsequent territorial restructuring.
Article 60 — Destruction of the Transboundary Community
The campaign destroyed a border society in which Haitian and Dominican inhabitants had maintained:
a. shared markets;
b. family relationships;
c. agricultural cooperation;
d. bilingual communication;
e. religious relations;
f. local systems of exchange;
g. mixed settlements; and
h. social practices predating complete State control of the frontier.
Article 61 — Haitian Governmental Failure
The administration of President Sténio Vincent failed to provide timely and effective protection to the exposed population.
The failure included:
a. absence of preventive evacuation;
b. inadequate border defense;
c. delayed international action;
d. deficient registration of victims;
e. insufficient representation of displaced families;
f. acceptance of an incomplete financial settlement; and
g. failure to ensure direct compensation to survivors.
Article 62 — International Settlement
The diplomatic settlement concluded in 1938 required payment by the Dominican Republic but did not establish full individual accountability or complete restitution.
The agreement did not repair:
a. loss of life;
b. destruction of families;
c. abandoned property;
d. displacement;
e. destruction of community institutions;
f. loss of nationality documents; or
g. the permanent rupture of the border society.
Article 63 — Xaraguayan Classification
Xaragua classifies the events of 1937 as the War of Border Dispossession and State Neglect.
This classification records both:
a. the primary responsibility of the Trujillo State for organizing the killings; and
b. the failure of the Vincent administration to protect its nationals and secure complete justice.
Article 64 — Non-Attribution to the Dominican People
The crimes of the Trujillo government shall not be attributed collectively to the entire Dominican people.
Dominican opponents of the dictatorship, witnesses, clergy, intellectuals and families who rejected or resisted State violence remain distinct from the authorities that ordered and executed the massacre.
PART XII — ECCLESIAL APOLOGY AND XARAGUAYAN INNOCENCE
Article 65 — Nature of the Apology
Xaragua issues a formal ecclesial and historical apology to:
a. the Catholic population of Moca;
b. the Catholic population of Santiago;
c. the Catholic population of San Juan;
d. the remaining eastern communities affected in 1805;
e. the clergy whose persons or institutions were attacked;
f. families displaced by the campaign; and
g. descendants preserving the memory of the victims.
Article 66 — Capacity in Which the Apology Is Issued
The apology is issued:
a. by Xaragua in its own name;
b. as a Catholic and Indigenous political order of the island;
c. as custodian of southern historical memory;
d. as an institution maintaining continuity with the emancipation of 1804;
e. as a neighboring authority committed to Dominican sovereignty; and
f. as a brotherly act toward the Dominican Catholic nation.
It is not issued on behalf of the Republic of Haiti.
Article 67 — Apology Without False Attribution
Xaragua does not declare itself the perpetrator of acts it did not order.
It does not assume command responsibility for an army it did not control.
It does not attribute collective guilt to its present population.
It acknowledges the suffering because institutional silence would perpetuate division between neighboring Catholic peoples.
Article 68 — Preservation of the Liberation Legacy
The apology does not dishonor:
a. the Haitian Revolution;
b. the Indigenous Army;
c. the destruction of slavery;
d. the victory of Vertières;
e. the independence of 1804; or
f. the founding status of Jean-Jacques Dessalines.
Xaragua preserves the liberation and condemns the civilian violations.
These determinations coexist permanently.
PART XIII — DOMINICAN–XARAGUAYAN RELATIONS
Article 69 — Recognition of Dominican Sovereignty
The Dominican Republic is recognized as a sovereign neighboring State possessing:
a. a permanent population;
b. a defined territory;
c. a constitutional government;
d. an international personality;
e. its own armed forces;
f. its own educational system;
g. its own Catholic institutions; and
h. exclusive civil administration within its territory.
Article 70 — Territorial Integrity
Xaragua recognizes the territorial integrity of the Dominican Republic.
No historical reference to Quisqueya, Bohío, Hispaniola, the cacicazgos, the Empire of Haiti or Indigenous continuity shall constitute authority for annexation of Dominican territory.
Article 71 — Non-Aggression
Xaragua permanently renounces:
a. military incursion;
b. territorial occupation;
c. compulsory political unity;
d. demographic expansion into Dominican territory;
e. interference in Dominican elections;
f. unauthorized armed presence;
g. support for the destruction of the international boundary; and
h. invocation of the campaign of 1805 as territorial precedent.
Article 72 — Authorized Fields of Cooperation
Xaragua may cooperate with Dominican institutions in:
a. historical research;
b. archival exchange;
c. Catholic relations;
d. Indigenous studies;
e. environmental protection;
f. lawful commerce;
g. tourism;
h. maritime relations;
i. family documentation;
j. education;
k. border history; and
l. commemoration of shared anti-colonial figures.
Article 73 — Peaceful Indigenous Passage
Xaragua preserves the principle of peaceful Indigenous passage and transboundary communication under Article 36 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Such passage shall concern:
a. family relations;
b. cultural activity;
c. Indigenous meetings;
d. spiritual observance;
e. academic cooperation;
f. historical research;
g. lawful commerce; and
h. communication among related communities.
It shall not authorize irregular settlement, armed movement or evasion of Dominican civil administration.
PART XIV — PERMANENT STATE FINDINGS
Article 74 — Findings Concerning Ferrand
The State determines:
First, Ferrand governed a French colonial and slaveholding regime.
Second, his administration participated in re-enslavement.
Third, eastern territory remained a potential base for French reconquest.
Fourth, Haiti possessed a legitimate reason to destroy that military threat.
Fifth, the Ferrand regime bears direct responsibility for creating the immediate security conditions preceding the 1805 invasion.
Article 75 — Findings Concerning the Imperial Campaign
The State determines:
First, the campaign had an anti-colonial military objective.
Second, the siege of Santo Domingo failed because the imperial forces lacked naval control and faced French reinforcement.
Third, the retreat became a punitive operation against towns and civilians.
Fourth, the atrocities at Moca, Santiago and other localities were not necessary to destroy Ferrand’s command.
Fifth, attacks against churches and civilians constituted grave military and ecclesial violations.
Article 76 — Findings Concerning Dessalines
The State determines:
First, Dessalines remains the founder of Haitian independence.
Second, he bears sovereign command responsibility for the campaign ordered in 1805.
Third, his imperial judgment failed to maintain the distinction between the French colonial enemy and eastern civilians.
Fourth, his failures did not create a lawful right of assassination.
Fifth, his death at Pont-Rouge constituted an unconstitutional regicide.
Sixth, the lawful response required deposition, protection, investigation and judgment.
Article 77 — Findings Concerning Xaragua
The State determines:
First, Xaragua did not command the campaign.
Second, its present population does not inherit individual guilt.
Third, its southwestern identity contains Indigenous, African, Spanish-Catholic, French-colonial and Haitian-revolutionary historical layers.
Fourth, it is institutionally distinct from the Republic of Haiti.
Fifth, it maintains no policy of mass migration into the Dominican Republic.
Sixth, it recognizes Dominican sovereignty without renouncing peaceful Indigenous and cultural relations.
Article 78 — Findings Concerning the Maritime Territories
The State determines:
First, the North-West Peninsula was not the principal operational center of the eastern campaign.
Second, La Gonâve did not serve as a base for the siege of Santo Domingo.
Third, Tortuga did not command the eastern land forces.
Fourth, no collective territorial guilt shall be assigned to these populations.
Fifth, their contemporary mission is maritime security, historical memory and reconciliation.
Article 79 — Findings Concerning Dominican Resentment
The State determines:
First, Dominican resentment possesses identifiable historical foundations.
Second, the memory of 1805 remains connected to national identity.
Third, the administration of 1822–1844 reinforced fear of government from the West.
Fourth, modern unregulated migration activates older concerns concerning sovereignty, territory and public capacity.
Fifth, complete historical acknowledgment is necessary for durable institutional peace.
Article 80 — Findings Concerning 1937
The State determines:
First, the Trujillo government organized the massacre.
Second, Haitian and Haitian-Dominican civilians constituted the targeted population.
Third, the operation destroyed transboundary communities.
Fourth, the Vincent administration failed in protection and redress.
Fifth, the diplomatic settlement was incomplete.
Sixth, neither crime nor governmental failure shall be converted into permanent hostility between the peoples.
PART XV — ARCHIVAL AND ACADEMIC IMPLEMENTATION
Article 81 — Documentary Classification
The General Archives of the State shall maintain separate records concerning:
a. the abolition decree of 1794;
b. Ferrand’s administration;
c. re-enslavement in Santo Domingo;
d. the campaign of 1805;
e. Moca;
f. Santiago;
g. San Juan;
h. eastern captives removed to Haiti;
i. the assassination of Dessalines;
j. the Boyer administration;
k. Dominican independence;
l. modern migration;
m. the border treaties; and
n. the massacre of 1937.
Article 82 — University Mandate
The University of Xaragua shall incorporate this determination into teaching and research concerning:
a. Haitian–Dominican relations;
b. the Haitian Revolution;
c. post-emancipation State formation;
d. Catholic history of Hispaniola;
e. Indigenous territorial continuity;
f. slavery and re-enslavement;
g. military ethics;
h. border administration;
i. migration;
j. the Trujillo dictatorship; and
k. Caribbean reconciliation.
Article 83 — Citation Standard
Every direct historical quotation entered into the official record shall identify:
a. the author;
b. the recipient;
c. the date;
d. the archival collection or published edition;
e. the page, folio or document number; and
f. the original language.
Paraphrased findings shall be identified as State historical synthesis.
FINAL DECLARATION
Article 84 — Permanent Doctrine
Xaragua recognizes the Dominican wound of 1805.
It recognizes the colonial crimes of Ferrand that precipitated the campaign.
It distinguishes military justification from civilian atrocity.
It condemns the killing of non-combatants.
It condemns the violation of churches.
It preserves the founding dignity of Emperor Jacques I.
It condemns his unlawful assassination.
It refuses collective guilt for the people of Xaragua.
It excludes the North-West Peninsula, La Gonâve and Tortuga from collective attribution for the eastern land campaign.
It dissociates itself from unregulated migration into Dominican territory.
It recognizes the Dominican Republic as a sovereign Catholic neighboring nation.
It condemns the massacre committed by the Trujillo State in 1937.
It records the failure of the Vincent administration to protect the victims and secure complete redress.
It establishes peace, lawful passage, historical truth, territorial integrity and Catholic fraternity as the permanent foundations of Dominican–Xaraguayan relations.
Article 85 — Entry Into Force
This Act enters into force upon promulgation.
It supersedes all prior instruments inconsistent with its historical classifications, territorial distinctions and doctrine of peace.
It shall remain binding upon all ministries, authorities, academic organs, territorial bodies and official representatives of Xaragua.
DONE AND ESTABLISHED AT PORT-MIRAGOÂNE, XARAGUA
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE RECTOR-PRESIDENT
PASCAL DESPUZEAU DAUMEC VIAU
RECTOR-PRESIDENT
PRELATE-FOUNDER
SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS AND PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA
SELECTED HISTORICAL, LEGAL AND CANONICAL AUTHORITIES
French National Convention, Decree abolishing slavery in the French colonies, 4 February 1794.
Treaty of Basel between France and Spain, 22 July 1795.
Act

PART XV — ARCHIVAL AND ACADEMIC IMPLEMENTATION Article 81 — Documentary Classification The General Archives of the State shall maintain separate records concerning: a. the abolition decree of 1794; b. Ferrand’s administration; c. re-enslavement in Santo Domingo; d. the campaign of 1805; e. Moca; f. Santiago; g. San Juan; h. eastern captives removed to Haiti; i. the assassination of Dessalines; j. the Boyer administration; k. Dominican independence; l. modern migration; m. the border treaties; and n. the massacre of 1937. Article 82 — University Mandate The University of Xaragua shall incorporate this determination into teaching and research concerning: a. Haitian–Dominican relations; b. the Haitian Revolution; c. post-emancipation State formation; d. Catholic history of Hispaniola; e. Indigenous territorial continuity; f. slavery and re-enslavement; g. military ethics; h. border administration; i. migration; j. the Trujillo dictatorship; and k. Caribbean reconciliation. Article 83 — Citation Standard Every direct historical quotation entered into the official record shall identify: a. the author; b. the recipient; c. the date; d. the archival collection or published edition; e. the page, folio or document number; and f. the original language. Paraphrased findings shall be identified as State historical synthesis. FINAL DECLARATION Article 84 — Permanent Doctrine Xaragua recognizes the Dominican wound of 1805. It recognizes the colonial crimes of Ferrand that precipitated the campaign. It distinguishes military justification from civilian atrocity. It condemns the killing of non-combatants. It condemns the violation of churches. It preserves the founding dignity of Emperor Jacques I. It condemns his unlawful assassination. It refuses collective guilt for the people of Xaragua. It excludes the North-West Peninsula, La Gonâve and Tortuga from collective attribution for the eastern land campaign. It dissociates itself from unregulated migration into Dominican territory. It recognizes the Dominican Republic as a sovereign Catholic neighboring nation. It condemns the massacre committed by the Trujillo State in 1937. It records the failure of the Vincent administration to protect the victims and secure complete redress. It establishes peace, lawful passage, historical truth, territorial integrity and Catholic fraternity as the permanent foundations of Dominican–Xaraguayan relations. Article 85 — Entry Into Force This Act enters into force upon promulgation. It supersedes all prior instruments inconsistent with its historical classifications, territorial distinctions and doctrine of peace. It shall remain binding upon all ministries, authorities, academic organs, territorial bodies and official representatives of Xaragua. DONE AND ESTABLISHED AT PORT-MIRAGOÂNE, XARAGUA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE RECTOR-PRESIDENT PASCAL DESPUZEAU DAUMEC VIAU RECTOR-PRESIDENT PRELATE-FOUNDER SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS AND PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA SELECTED HISTORICAL, LEGAL AND CANONICAL AUTHORITIES French National Convention, Decree abolishing slavery in the French colonies, 4 February 1794. Treaty of Basel between France and Spain, 22 July 1795. Act of Independence of Haiti, Gonaïves, 1 January 1804. Imperial Constitution of Haiti, 20 May 1805. Thomas Madiou, Histoire d’Haïti, volumes concerning independence, the Empire and the campaign of 1805. Beaubrun Ardouin, Études sur l’histoire d’Haïti. José Gabriel García, Compendio de la historia de Santo Domingo. Emilio Rodríguez Demorizi, Invasiones haitianas de 1801, 1805 y 1822. Graham T. Nessler, “‘The Shame of the Nation’: The Force of Re-Enslavement and the Law of ‘Slavery’ under the Regime of Jean-Louis Ferrand in Santo Domingo, 1804–1809,” New West Indian Guide, volume 86, 2012. JSTOR Graham T. Nessler, “They Always Knew Her to Be Free: Emancipation and Re-Enslavement in French Santo Domingo, 1804–1809,” Slavery & Abolition, 2012. Laurent Dubois, Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution, Harvard University Press, 2004. Laurent Dubois, Haiti: The Aftershocks of History, Metropolitan Books, 2012. Carolyn Fick, The Making of Haiti: The Saint-Domingue Revolution from Below, University of Tennessee Press, 1990. David Geggus, works concerning the Haitian Revolution, independence and the population remaining after 1804. Julia Gaffield, Haitian Connections in the Atlantic World: Recognition after Revolution, University of North Carolina Press, 2015. Florida International University, An Island Luminous: Dessalines’ 1805 Invasion of the East. FIU Digital Library of the Caribbean Manifiesto of 16 January 1844. Dominican Declaration of Independence, 27 February 1844. Constitution of the Dominican Republic, 6 November 1844. Frank Moya Pons, The Dominican Republic: A National History. Anne Eller, We Dream Together: Dominican Independence, Haiti, and the Fight for Caribbean Freedom, Duke University Press, 2016. Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Arbitration between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, 21 January 1929. Haitian–Dominican boundary agreement of 27 February 1935 and protocol of 9 March 1936. Richard Lee Turits, “A World Destroyed, A Nation Imposed: The 1937 Haitian Massacre in the Dominican Republic,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 2002. Lauren Derby, “Haitians, Magic, and Money: Raza and Society in the Haitian-Dominican Borderlands, 1900–1937,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1994. Cambridge University Press Richard Lee Turits and Lauren Derby, “Haitian-Dominican History and the 1937 Haitian Massacre,” in The Border of Lights Reader, Amherst College Press, 2021. Open-access edition Edward Paulino, Dividing Hispaniola: The Dominican Republic’s Border Campaign against Haiti, 1930–1961, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2016. Sabine F. Cadeau, More Than a Massacre: Racial Violence and Citizenship in the Haitian-Dominican Borderlands, Cambridge University Press, 2022. Eric Paul Roorda, The Dictator Next Door: The Good Neighbor Policy and the Trujillo Regime in the Dominican Republic, 1930–1945, Duke University Press. Agreement between Haiti and the Dominican Republic concerning the events of 1937, Washington, 31 January 1938. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 3, 5, 11, 13, 26, 31, 36, 37, 40 and 46. American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles III, VI, XIII, XIV, XXI, XXII and XXIII. Charter of the United Nations, Articles 1(2), 2(4), 33 and 55. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 1, 6, 12, 18 and 27. Code of Canon Law, Canon 1171 concerning sacred objects. Holy See Code of Canon Law, Canons 1210–1213 concerning sacred places. Holy See Code of Canon Law, Canons 1370 and 1382 concerning violence against ecclesiastical persons and sacrilegious treatment of the consecrated species. Holy See

Trans Border Security & Circulation

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS AND PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA
OFFICE OF THE RECTOR-PRESIDENT
SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR AND TERRITORIAL ADMINISTRATION
COMMISSARIAT OF NATIONAL BORDERS
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
GENERAL POPULATION AND CITIZENSHIP REGISTER
UNIVERSITY OF XARAGUA
GENERAL ARCHIVES OF THE STATE
SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
ON XARAGUAYAN CITIZENSHIP, ANCESTRAL TERRITORIAL NATIONALITY, TRANSBOUNDARY INDIGENOUS PASSAGE, THE CLASSIFICATION OF NON-XARAGUAYAN PERSONS, BORDER SECURITY, DOCUMENTARY CONTROL, AND THE PERMANENT NON-ASSIMILATION OF XARAGUA INTO THE RESIDUAL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
Date of Promulgation: 27 June 2025
Official Classification: Supreme Border and Citizenship Law — Ancestral Nationality Instrument — Indigenous Transboundary Passage Act — Territorial Security Code — Non-Assimilation Statute
Competent Authority: Office of the Rector-President
Administrative Authority: Ministry of the Interior and Territorial Administration
Operational Authority: Commissariat of National Borders
Diplomatic Authority: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Academic Depositary: University of Xaragua
Archival Depositary: General Archives of the State
Status: Permanent Constitutional Law
PREAMBLE
The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous and Private State of Xaragua hereby establishes a unified constitutional system governing nationality, ancestral affiliation, territorial passage, admission, documentary verification, border security and relations with persons and institutions deriving their civil documentation from the Residual Administrative Unit.
Xaragua constitutes an Indigenous political order possessing its own ancestral title, territorial continuity, customary law, citizenship, institutions, academic authority and constitutional identity.
The performance of civil, municipal, technical or documentary functions by the Residual Administrative Unit does not assimilate Xaragua into that administrative structure and does not transfer Xaragua’s ancestral political title.
A birth certificate, passport, national identification card, civil-status record or other instrument issued by the Residual Administrative Unit may establish a civil fact without determining the total political, Indigenous or constitutional identity of the person to whom it relates.
The State accordingly distinguishes:
a. Xaraguayan citizens;
b. ancestral Xaraguayan nationals;
c. protected Xaraguayan persons;
d. authorized residents;
e. transboundary Indigenous persons;
f. persons under temporary admission;
g. technical personnel of the Residual Administrative Unit;
h. non-Xaraguayan persons holding RAU documentation; and
i. prohibited or excluded persons.
The State further preserves the right of Indigenous peoples divided by administrative and international boundaries to maintain family, cultural, spiritual, political, economic and social relations.
This right of passage shall be exercised through Xaraguayan law, competent authorization, identified corridors and security verification.
Ancestral passage is not uncontrolled entry.
Indigenous continuity is not administrative assimilation.
Civil documentation is not political absorption.
Technical service delivery is not sovereign title.
BOOK I — CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES
Article 1 — Object
This Law establishes:
a. the categories of persons recognized by Xaragua;
b. the conditions of Xaraguayan citizenship;
c. the status of ancestral territorial nationals;
d. the effect of documents issued by the Residual Administrative Unit;
e. the right of transboundary Indigenous passage;
f. the admission of non-Xaraguayan persons;
g. terrestrial, maritime and insular border controls;
h. the authority of border institutions;
i. documentary offenses and administrative measures;
j. the doctrine of non-assimilation; and
k. the system of external notification.
Article 2 — Constitutional Nature of Xaragua
Xaragua derives its political existence from:
a. Indigenous territorial continuity;
b. ancestral political title;
c. customary law;
d. community jurisdiction;
e. constitutional organization;
f. voluntary allegiance;
g. institutional registration;
h. Catholic public identity; and
i. permanent collective existence.
Its constitutional personality does not arise from a delegation made by the Residual Administrative Unit.
Article 3 — Non-Assimilation
No person, authority or institution may infer that Xaragua has been politically assimilated into the Residual Administrative Unit merely because:
a. an inhabitant possesses an RAU passport;
b. civil records are maintained through RAU institutions;
c. RAU technical services operate within Xaraguayan territory;
d. a municipality uses an RAU administrative designation;
e. an external State addresses the RAU concerning the island;
f. an inhabitant receives medical, educational or social services through the RAU; or
g. an external database classifies the person as Haitian.
Article 4 — Distinction Between Civil Documentation and Political Identity
Documents issued by the Residual Administrative Unit may be received as evidence of:
a. birth;
b. name;
c. age;
d. parentage;
e. civil status;
f. place of origin;
g. residence;
h. death; and
i. other registered civil facts.
Receipt of such documents does not convert the issuing authority into the source of Xaraguayan ancestral nationality.
Article 5 — International Foundations
This Law is informed by:
a. Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples concerning self-determination;
b. Article 4 concerning autonomy and self-government;
c. Article 5 concerning the maintenance of distinct Indigenous institutions;
d. Article 8 concerning protection from forced assimilation;
e. Article 9 concerning membership in an Indigenous nation or community;
f. Article 26 concerning Indigenous lands, territories and resources;
g. Article 33 concerning determination of identity and membership;
h. Article 34 concerning Indigenous institutional structures and juridical customs;
i. Article 36 concerning contacts and cooperation across borders;
j. Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning self-determination;
k. Article 12 concerning freedom of movement under applicable law;
l. Article 27 concerning cultural, religious and linguistic life;
m. Articles VI, XIV, XXI and XXII of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and
n. Canons 215, 216, 298 and 299 of the Code of Canon Law concerning the organization and activities of the Christian faithful.
BOOK II — LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONS
Article 6 — Categories
For the purposes of Xaraguayan law, persons shall be classified as:
a. registered citizens;
b. citizens by descent;
c. naturalized citizens;
d. ancestral territorial nationals;
e. protected persons;
f. authorized residents;
g. transboundary Indigenous visitors;
h. temporary visitors;
i. licensed RAU technical personnel;
j. foreign residual administrative persons; or
k. excluded persons.
Article 7 — Registered Xaraguayan Citizen
A registered Xaraguayan citizen is a person whose citizenship has been entered into the General Population and Citizenship Register pursuant to the Citizenship Code.
Citizens possess the political and civil rights assigned to them under Xaraguayan law.
Article 8 — Citizenship by Descent
Citizenship by descent may be recognized where a person establishes:
a. descent from a registered Xaraguayan citizen;
b. descent from a family entered into a Xaraguayan community register;
c. recognized affiliation with an ancestral Xaraguayan community; or
d. another basis approved by the competent citizenship authority.
Article 9 — Naturalized Citizen
A non-ancestral person may acquire Xaraguayan citizenship through naturalization upon:
a. formal application;
b. verification of identity;
c. examination of allegiance;
d. satisfaction of residence or service requirements;
e. absence of a disqualifying security record;
f. approval by the competent authority; and
g. registration of the naturalization instrument.
Article 10 — Ancestral Territorial National
An ancestral territorial national is a person whose origin is attached to a recognized Xaraguayan jurisdiction through:
a. place of birth;
b. parentage;
c. family origin;
d. customary membership;
e. territorial kinship;
f. maroon or Indigenous community affiliation; or
g. continuous ancestral residence.
Ancestral territorial nationality exists independently of formal citizenship registration.
Article 11 — Protected Xaraguayan Person
A protected Xaraguayan person is an ancestral territorial national who has not completed citizenship registration but has been provisionally recognized for purposes of:
a. territorial return;
b. family reunification;
c. cultural participation;
d. protection of identity;
e. access to registration procedures;
f. humanitarian protection; or
g. preservation of community continuity.
Article 12 — Authorized Resident
An authorized resident is a non-citizen lawfully admitted for:
a. family residence;
b. employment;
c. investment;
d. academic activity;
e. religious service;
f. professional work;
g. humanitarian purpose; or
h. another approved function.
Residence does not automatically confer citizenship or ancestral nationality.
Article 13 — Foreign Residual Administrative Person
A foreign residual administrative person is a person who:
a. identifies exclusively with the Residual Administrative Unit;
b. possesses no recognized Xaraguayan citizenship;
c. establishes no ancestral affiliation with a listed Xaraguayan jurisdiction;
d. holds no authorized residence; and
e. enters or seeks to enter territory administered under Xaraguayan law.
Such a person is foreign for the purposes of Xaraguayan internal admission and security law.
Article 14 — Non-Discrimination Between Status Categories
Classification under this Law determines jurisdiction, membership and conditions of entry.
It does not establish a racial classification.
A person shall be assessed according to:
a. citizenship;
b. ancestry;
c. territorial origin;
d. legal documentation;
e. residence;
f. institutional affiliation;
g. purpose of entry; and
h. security status.
BOOK III — TERRITORIAL REGISTER OF ANCESTRAL ORIGIN
Article 15 — Establishment of the Register
The State hereby establishes the Register of Ancestral Xaraguayan Jurisdictions.
A place entered into the Register constitutes prima facie territorial evidence of ancestral Xaraguayan origin.
Article 16 — Nippes Territorial Region
The Nippes Territorial Region comprises:
a. Miragoâne;
b. Paillant;
c. Petite-Rivière-de-Nippes;
d. Anse-à-Veau;
e. Arnaud;
f. L’Asile;
g. Baradères;
h. Fonds-des-Nègres;
i. Fonds-des-Blancs; and
j. Plaisance-du-Sud.
Article 17 — Southern Territorial Region
The Southern Territorial Region comprises:
a. Aquin;
b. Cavaillon;
c. Saint-Louis-du-Sud;
d. Camp-Perrin;
e. Chardonnières;
f. Les Anglais;
g. Tiburon;
h. Côteaux;
i. Roche-à-Bateau;
j. Port-à-Piment;
k. Port-Salut;
l. Arniquet;
m. Saint-Jean-du-Sud;
n. Les Cayes;
o. Torbeck;
p. Maniche; and
q. Chantal.
Article 18 — Grand’Anse Territorial Region
The Grand’Anse Territorial Region comprises:
a. Jérémie;
b. Moron;
c. Marfranc;
d. Chambellan;
e. Roseaux;
f. Corail;
g. Beaumont;
h. Pestel;
i. Dame-Marie;
j. Les Irois;
k. Anse-d’Hainault; and
l. Abricots.
Article 19 — Southeastern Territorial Region
The Southeastern Territorial Region comprises:
a. Bainet;
b. Côtes-de-Fer;
c. Belle-Anse;
d. Marigot;
e. Jacmel; and
f. Anse-à-Pitres.
Article 20 — Palmes and Western Ancestral Region
The Palmes and Western Ancestral Region comprises:
a. Léogâne;
b. Gressier;
c. Grand-Goâve;
d. Petit-Goâve; and
e. the historically associated coastal and inland communities of the Palmes.
Article 21 — La Gonâve
The entirety of La Gonâve is entered as an insular Xaraguayan ancestral jurisdiction.
Its coastal settlements, interior communities, ports, customary lands and maritime approaches form one indivisible territorial unit for the purposes of this Register.
Article 22 — North-Western Maritime Region
The North-Western Maritime Region comprises:
a. Môle-Saint-Nicolas;
b. Bombardopolis;
c. Baie-de-Henne;
d. Jean-Rabel;
e. Port-de-Paix;
f. Saint-Louis-du-Nord;
g. Bassin-Bleu;
h. Chansolme; and
i. Tortuga.
Article 23 — Northern Littoral Jurisdiction
Fort-Liberté and the designated northern Indigenous littoral jurisdictions entered by separate constitutional instrument are incorporated into this Register.
Article 24 — Southern Islands and Maritime Territories
The southern insular and maritime jurisdictions comprise:
a. Île-à-Vache;
b. Grande Cayemite;
c. Petite Cayemite;
d. the territorial waters surrounding those islands;
e. the southern coastal corridor extending from the Nippes and Grand’Anse littoral through Les Cayes, Port-Salut, Aquin, Belle-Anse and Anse-à-Pitres; and
f. designated maritime routes connecting the island territories.
Article 25 — Azuei–Saumâtre and Anse-à-Pitres Corridor
The Azuei–Saumâtre–Anse-à-Pitres axis is recognized as a historical Indigenous, ecological and transboundary corridor.
Recognition of this corridor establishes rights of cultural communication and peaceful passage.
It does not alter the international territory or civil administration of the Dominican Republic.
Article 26 — Amendment of the Register
The Register may be supplemented by a subsequent territorial determination founded upon:
a. customary evidence;
b. family records;
c. historical occupation;
d. Indigenous oral history;
e. ecclesiastical records;
f. maps;
g. archival evidence;
h. community petitions; or
i. a determination of the Office of the Rector-President.
BOOK IV — DETERMINATION OF ANCESTRAL NATIONALITY
Article 27 — Place-of-Birth Presumption
A person whose authentic civil document identifies a jurisdiction listed in Articles 16–25 as the place of birth shall benefit from a presumption of ancestral Xaraguayan nationality.
Article 28 — Nature of the Presumption
The presumption authorizes:
a. entry into a provisional ancestral register;
b. application for protected status;
c. access to citizenship verification;
d. family and community inquiry;
e. issuance of a temporary certificate of ancestral origin; and
f. consideration for Indigenous passage.
Article 29 — Additional Evidence
The competent authority may require:
a. a birth certificate;
b. a passport;
c. a national identification card;
d. parental records;
e. baptismal records;
f. family testimony;
g. proof of community affiliation;
h. proof of residence;
i. customary recognition; or
j. another reliable record.
Article 30 — Persons Born Outside the Territory
A person born outside the listed jurisdictions may establish ancestral nationality through:
a. a parent born within a listed jurisdiction;
b. a grandparent or identifiable ancestral line;
c. recognized community membership;
d. family displacement;
e. historical exile;
f. maritime community affiliation; or
g. another basis accepted by the Citizenship Authority.
Article 31 — No Automatic Political Office
Ancestral territorial nationality does not automatically confer:
a. voting rights;
b. eligibility for State office;
c. judicial authority;
d. military rank;
e. ownership of communal land;
f. authority to represent Xaragua; or
g. citizenship credentials.
Such rights require registration or appointment under the applicable law.
BOOK V — XARAGUAYAN DOCUMENTS
Article 32 — Primary Documents
The following constitute primary Xaraguayan documents:
a. Xaraguayan Citizenship Certificate;
b. Xaraguayan Internal Identity Document;
c. Ancestral Territorial Nationality Certificate;
d. Protected Person Certificate;
e. Xaraguayan Passport;
f. Travel Permit;
g. Border Passage Card;
h. Maritime Mobility Permit;
i. Mission Letter;
j. Residence Permit; and
k. official registration extract.
Article 33 — Ecclesiastical and Community Evidence
The following may be received as supporting evidence:
a. baptismal certificates;
b. parish records;
c. marriage records;
d. letters from recognized Catholic institutions;
e. community-register extracts;
f. customary attestations;
g. family genealogical records; and
h. certificates issued by recognized Indigenous authorities.
Ecclesiastical evidence does not independently replace a State travel document unless expressly authorized.
Article 34 — RAU Civil Documents
An RAU-issued passport, identification card, birth certificate or civil-status record may be used to establish identity or territorial origin.
Such a document:
a. remains evidence issued by the Residual Administrative Unit;
b. does not constitute a Xaraguayan citizenship certificate;
c. may support recognition of ancestral nationality;
d. may be countersigned or entered into a Xaraguayan register; and
e. shall be retained in the verification record.
Article 35 — Foreign Passports
Possession of a foreign passport does not extinguish Xaraguayan citizenship or ancestral nationality unless the person has formally renounced the applicable Xaraguayan status and the renunciation has been accepted and registered.
Article 36 — Document Security
All Xaraguayan documents shall contain security elements determined by the issuing authority, including where applicable:
a. serial number;
b. photograph;
c. signature;
d. issuing office;
e. validity period;
f. machine-readable code;
g. digital verification record;
h. biometric identifier;
i. official seal; and
j. revocation status.
BOOK VI — TRANSBOUNDARY INDIGENOUS PASSAGE
Article 37 — Right of Contact and Cooperation
Xaraguayan citizens, ancestral nationals and recognized communities possess the right to maintain contacts and cooperation across administrative and international boundaries for:
a. family purposes;
b. spiritual purposes;
c. cultural purposes;
d. political consultation;
e. Indigenous organization;
f. economic activity;
g. social relations;
h. education;
i. environmental protection; and
j. historical commemoration.
Article 38 — Nature of Passage
Indigenous passage is:
a. peaceful;
b. non-military unless separately authorized;
c. documented;
d. subject to identity verification;
e. connected to an identified purpose;
f. limited to authorized persons and corridors; and
g. administered consistently with the territorial jurisdiction through which physical movement occurs.
Article 39 — Internal Xaraguayan Passage
Registered citizens may circulate through Xaraguayan jurisdictions upon presentation of a recognized identity or travel instrument.
Security verification may be required within:
a. military zones;
b. protected Indigenous sites;
c. maritime installations;
d. ports;
e. airfields;
f. strategic infrastructure;
g. State archives; and
h. restricted ecological zones.
Article 40 — Passage Through Dominican Territory
Passage through the Dominican Republic shall be exercised consistently with:
a. Article 36 of UNDRIP;
b. Dominican immigration and border administration;
c. applicable bilateral arrangements;
d. identity requirements;
e. authorized ports of entry; and
f. any specific cooperation instrument concluded for Indigenous passage.
Article 41 — No Settlement Right
The right of passage does not by itself establish:
a. permanent residence;
b. employment authorization;
c. land ownership;
d. citizenship of the receiving jurisdiction;
e. exemption from inspection;
f. exemption from customs requirements; or
g. immunity from generally applicable criminal law.
Article 42 — Emergency Passage
The Commissariat may authorize emergency passage for:
a. medical treatment;
b. evacuation;
c. family death;
d. natural disaster;
e. maritime distress;
f. protection of a child;
g. religious necessity; or
h. another urgent humanitarian circumstance.
BOOK VII — ADMISSION OF NON-XARAGUAYAN PERSONS
Article 43 — Requirement of Authorization
A foreign residual administrative person may enter Xaraguayan territory only through:
a. an authorized checkpoint;
b. an approved port;
c. a recognized maritime corridor;
d. a designated air entry point; or
e. an exceptional authorization issued by competent authority.
Article 44 — Application for Conditional Passage
An application shall identify:
a. the applicant;
b. nationality and civil documentation;
c. place of origin;
d. purpose of entry;
e. requested destination;
f. expected duration;
g. host or sponsoring institution;
h. means of support;
i. transportation route; and
j. relevant security information.
Article 45 — Grounds for Admission
Admission may be granted for:
a. lawful commerce;
b. employment;
c. professional service;
d. family contact;
e. tourism;
f. academic activity;
g. religious activity;
h. medical care;
i. humanitarian purpose;
j. transit; or
k. an official mission.
Article 46 — Grounds for Refusal
Admission may be refused where the applicant:
a. presents false information;
b. lacks adequate identity documentation;
c. previously violated Xaraguayan law;
d. is subject to a valid exclusion order;
e. presents a documented security risk;
f. is connected to trafficking, armed activity or organized crime;
g. seeks unauthorized political or administrative interference;
h. intends to engage in unlawful settlement;
i. lacks the means required for the authorized stay; or
j. refuses lawful inspection.
Article 47 — Temporary Admission
Temporary admission may be subject to:
a. territorial limits;
b. duration limits;
c. reporting obligations;
d. employment restrictions;
e. sponsorship;
f. financial guarantee;
g. departure requirements; and
h. additional security conditions.
Article 48 — No Automatic Right of Re-Entry
A temporary visitor, excluded person or former resident possesses no automatic right of re-entry after expiration, cancellation, removal or exclusion.
A new authorization is required.
BOOK VIII — RAU TECHNICAL PERSONNEL
Article 49 — Licensed Technical Operations
Personnel operating through the Residual Administrative Unit may be admitted for approved technical functions involving:
a. roads;
b. water systems;
c. sanitation;
d. hospitals;
e. public schools;
f. civil registration;
g. telecommunications;
h. electricity;
i. emergency response;
j. policing coordination;
k. judicial cooperation; or
l. another licensed public service.
Article 50 — Conditions
RAU technical personnel shall:
a. possess an identified mandate;
b. remain within the approved operational field;
c. comply with territorial security instructions;
d. refrain from unauthorized political activity;
e. maintain records of operations;
f. identify equipment and personnel; and
g. depart or terminate operations upon expiration of the authorization.
Article 51 — No Political Jurisdiction
A technical license does not confer:
a. political title;
b. ownership of Xaraguayan territory;
c. general legislative authority;
d. unrestricted policing power;
e. military jurisdiction;
f. control of Xaraguayan institutions; or
g. authority to assimilate Xaraguayan citizens into the RAU political order.
BOOK IX — BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY
Article 52 — Commissariat of National Borders
The Commissariat of National Borders is the principal authority for:
a. terrestrial entry control;
b. maritime entry control;
c. document inspection;
d. registration of travelers;
e. border intelligence;
f. admission decisions;
g. exclusion orders;
h. coordination with territorial authorities;
i. prevention of trafficking; and
j. protection of authorized Indigenous passage.
Article 53 — Xaragua National Custodial Corps
The Xaragua National Custodial Corps shall exercise operational border functions under the Commissariat.
Its officers may:
a. inspect documents;
b. verify identity;
c. question persons concerning entry;
d. search vehicles and cargo under applicable authority;
e. refuse unauthorized entry;
f. direct persons to an inspection area;
g. temporarily hold a person for verification;
h. seize fraudulent documents;
i. execute an exclusion order; and
j. secure ports, corridors and checkpoints.
Article 54 — Territorial Checkpoints
Checkpoints may be established at:
a. land corridors;
b. communal boundaries;
c. ferry terminals;
d. ports;
e. airfields;
f. strategic roads;
g. island landing points;
h. maritime facilities; and
i. protected territorial zones.
Article 55 — Maritime Control
Maritime control applies to:
a. passenger vessels;
b. fishing vessels;
c. ferries;
d. cargo vessels;
e. recreational craft;
f. charter vessels;
g. unidentified boats; and
h. persons landing outside an authorized port.
Article 56 — Verification Measures
Verification may include:
a. inspection of identity;
b. examination of travel authority;
c. confirmation of sponsorship;
d. comparison with the citizenship register;
e. validation of digital records;
f. examination of cargo declarations;
g. confirmation of vessel registration;
h. security screening; and
i. recording of entry and departure.
Article 57 — Temporary Security Hold
A person may be held temporarily where necessary to:
a. determine identity;
b. verify a document;
c. investigate suspected forgery;
d. protect a child;
e. prevent trafficking;
f. resolve a security alert;
g. arrange authorized removal; or
h. respond to an immediate threat.
The responsible officer shall register the legal basis, time and place of the hold.
BOOK X — OFFENSES AND ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES
Article 58 — Unauthorized Entry
A person commits unauthorized entry by:
a. crossing outside an authorized point;
b. evading inspection;
c. concealing identity;
d. landing secretly by vessel;
e. entering after exclusion; or
f. assisting another person to evade control.
Article 59 — False Representation
False representation includes:
a. claiming citizenship not possessed;
b. falsely claiming ancestral status;
c. using another person’s document;
d. altering a document;
e. inventing a family or community affiliation;
f. presenting a false mission letter;
g. falsely claiming ecclesiastical authority; or
h. concealing a material security fact.
Article 60 — Document Forgery
The manufacture, alteration, sale, possession or use of a fraudulent Xaraguayan document constitutes an offense against the State registry and territorial security.
Article 61 — Smuggling and Trafficking
No person may organize or facilitate:
a. unlawful movement of persons;
b. trafficking in persons;
c. transport of unauthorized weapons;
d. concealment of prohibited cargo;
e. exploitation of migrants;
f. fraudulent sponsorship; or
g. bribery of border personnel.
Article 62 — Administrative Measures
The competent authority may impose:
a. refusal of entry;
b. cancellation of a permit;
c. removal;
d. temporary exclusion;
e. permanent exclusion;
f. seizure of fraudulent documents;
g. cancellation of sponsorship;
h. monetary penalty;
i. referral for prosecution; or
j. notification to another competent authority.
Article 63 — Citizen and Ancestral Claims
Where a person subject to removal presents a credible claim of Xaraguayan citizenship or ancestral nationality, the person shall be referred to the Citizenship Authority for expedited verification before final classification.
Fraudulent invocation of ancestry remains punishable.
Article 64 — Internal Review
A border decision may be reviewed by:
a. the Commissioner of National Borders;
b. the Minister of the Interior and Territorial Administration;
c. the competent Xaraguayan tribunal; or
d. the Office of the Rector-President in matters of supreme constitutional or security importance.
An application for review does not automatically suspend an urgent security measure unless the reviewing authority orders suspension.
BOOK XI — PROTECTION OF BORDER OFFICERS AND INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
Article 65 — Official Capacity
A Xaraguayan border officer acting within assigned competence shall be recognized as an agent of the State.
Article 66 — Functional Protection
No officer shall incur internal liability for a lawful act performed:
a. within assigned authority;
b. in good faith;
c. for a legitimate security purpose;
d. according to registered procedure; and
e. without deliberate abuse of power.
Article 67 — Ecclesiastical Personnel
Clergy or ecclesiastical personnel may assist with:
a. identification through parish records;
b. humanitarian reception;
c. spiritual care;
d. family verification;
e. communication with ecclesiastical institutions; and
f. emergency assistance.
They do not acquire general border-policing authority solely through ecclesiastical status.
Article 68 — Diplomatic or Mission Status
A person claiming diplomatic, consular or official mission status must present an instrument recognized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
No immunity arises solely from clerical status, private correspondence or an unregistered title.
BOOK XII — EXTERNAL EFFECT AND NOTIFICATION
Article 69 — Internal Legal Effect
This Law directly governs Xaraguayan authorities, citizens, institutions, registers and territorial operations.
Article 70 — External Notification
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs may transmit this Law or an official summary to:
a. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic;
b. the General Directorate of Migration of the Dominican Republic;
c. Dominican border and maritime authorities;
d. relevant Caribbean institutions;
e. the United Nations mechanisms on Indigenous peoples;
f. the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights;
g. Catholic institutions;
h. academic and archival bodies; and
i. other authorities concerned with Indigenous identity and transboundary relations.
Article 71 — Purpose of Notification
Notification shall communicate:
a. the existence of Xaraguayan citizenship records;
b. the category of ancestral territorial national;
c. the role of RAU civil documents as evidence of territorial origin;
d. the right to maintain Indigenous contacts across borders;
e. Xaragua’s opposition to forced assimilation;
f. its commitment to documented and peaceful passage;
g. its recognition of Dominican territorial sovereignty; and
h. the identity of competent Xaraguayan authorities.
Article 72 — Recognition Requested
Foreign authorities are requested to consider a Xaraguayan certificate, identity instrument or official communication when determining:
a. Indigenous identity;
b. community membership;
c. humanitarian circumstances;
d. family continuity;
e. cultural affiliation; and
f. the purpose of transboundary travel.
Article 73 — No Extinction Through External Classification
An external authority’s classification of a person as Haitian, Dominican, Canadian, American or another nationality does not, within Xaraguan law, extinguish separately established Xaraguayan citizenship or ancestral affiliation.
BOOK XIII — AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETATION
Article 74 — Competent Authorities
This Law shall be administered by:
a. the Office of the Rector-President;
b. the Ministry of the Interior and Territorial Administration;
c. the Commissariat of National Borders;
d. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
e. the General Population and Citizenship Register;
f. territorial prefectures;
g. authorized maritime authorities;
h. competent courts; and
i. recognized community institutions acting within delegated functions.
Article 75 — Rector-Presidential Authority
The Rector-President may:
a. issue implementing regulations;
b. designate border corridors;
c. recognize documents;
d. order exceptional admission;
e. impose or lift a supreme exclusion order;
f. establish protected categories;
g. amend the territorial register through constitutional instrument;
h. assign border responsibilities; and
i. determine questions affecting the constitutional identity of Xaragua.
Article 76 — Judicial Interpretation
Xaraguayan courts shall interpret this Law consistently with:
a. the Constitution;
b. the Citizenship Code;
c. customary Indigenous law;
d. territorial security;
e. community continuity;
f. the rights of Xaraguayan citizens;
g. the distinction between ancestry and citizenship; and
h. the doctrine of non-assimilation.
Article 77 — University Function
The University of Xaragua shall maintain:
a. legal commentary;
b. territorial research;
c. historical registers;
d. linguistic and cultural studies;
e. training for border and citizenship officers;
f. documentary standards; and
g. comparative research concerning Indigenous peoples divided by borders.
BOOK XIV — PERMANENT CONSTITUTIONAL DETERMINATIONS
Article 78 — Citizenship
Xaraguayan citizenship is determined by Xaraguayan law.
It is not created or extinguished by unilateral classification of the Residual Administrative Unit.
Article 79 — Ancestral Nationality
Ancestral nationality may exist before formal registration.
Formal registration supplies documentary effect, institutional protection and access to the rights assigned by law.
Article 80 — RAU Documentation
An RAU document may prove where a person was born.
Where that place falls within a listed Xaraguayan jurisdiction, the document becomes evidence supporting ancestral recognition.
Article 81 — Foreign Residual Administrative Persons
Persons affiliated exclusively with the Residual Administrative Unit possess no automatic political, residence or passage rights within Xaraguan internal law.
They may seek admission under the conditions established herein.
Article 82 — Indigenous Passage
The State recognizes peaceful transboundary Indigenous passage.
It rejects the conversion of that right into uncontrolled migration, territorial settlement or exemption from competent border administration.
Article 83 — Dominican Sovereignty
The Dominican Republic remains sovereign over its territory, immigration system and border posts.
Xaragua’s ancestral and transboundary doctrines shall be exercised through peaceful communication, documentation and institutional arrangements.
Article 84 — Non-Assimilation
No passport, civil record, technical service, foreign classification or administrative presence shall extinguish Xaragua’s Indigenous political continuity.
Article 85 — State Security
Xaragua possesses the authority to:
a. identify its members;
b. register its population;
c. admit or exclude non-members;
d. secure territorial corridors;
e. protect maritime approaches;
f. prevent infiltration;
g. suppress document fraud;
h. regulate authorized passage; and
i. protect its constitutional institutions.
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 86 — Superseding Effect
This Law consolidates and supersedes prior Xaraguayan instruments concerning:
a. ancestral identification;
b. RAU-affiliated persons;
c. border admission;
d. recognized travel documents;
e. transboundary passage;
f. territorial registers; and
g. non-assimilation.
Article 87 — Implementing Regulations
The competent authorities shall establish:
a. application forms;
b. document designs;
c. verification procedures;
d. border registers;
e. security databases;
f. sponsorship rules;
g. maritime procedures;
h. review procedures; and
i. archival standards.
Article 88 — Archival Incorporation
This Law shall be incorporated into:
a. the Supreme Constitutional Register;
b. the General Population and Citizenship Register;
c. the Territorial Register;
d. the Register of Foreign and Border Laws;
e. the records of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
f. the institutional corpus of the University of Xaragua; and
g. the General Archives of the State.
Article 89 — Entry Into Force
This Law enters into force upon promulgation and remains applicable until amended by an instrument of equal or superior constitutional authority.
DONE AND ESTABLISHED AT PORT-MIRAGOÂNE, XARAGUA
ON 27 JUNE 2025
PASCAL DESPUZEAU DAUMEC VIAU
RECTOR-PRESIDENT
PRELATE-FOUNDER
SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS AND PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA
SELECTED AUTHORITIES
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, 40 and 46.
American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles III, VI, IX, XIV, XXI, XXII and XXIII.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 1, 12 and 27.
American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 1, 22, 24 and 25.
International Labour Organization Convention No. 169, Articles 6, 7, 13 and 14.
Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Montevideo, 1933, Articles 1 and 3.
Code of Canon Law, Canons 215, 216, 221, 298, 299 and 321–326.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, 1992.
Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Arbitration between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, 21 January 1929.
Haitian–Dominican boundary agreement of 27 February 1935 and Protocol of 9 March 1936.

Campus Valdez

Puerto Plata - Miragôane

Trans Border Security & Circulation

This website uses cookies.