64 162. According to the facts of this case, when the request for late registration was made, the birth certifications of the children were presented; namely, for Dilcia Yean, the birth certification issued by the “local health center” of Sabana Grande de Boyá, and for Violeta Bosico, the birth certification issued by the Auxiliary Mayor of Batey Las Charcas de Sabana Grande de Boyá; and also the identity cards of the mother of each child (supra para. 109(15)). 163. The Court considers that by appearing before the Civil Status Registrar and making a request for late registration, the children claimed their right to nationality. To this end, they presented their birth certifications and the identity cards of their mothers, which were the two requirements that should be applied according to the pertinent domestic legislation and their ages (supra para. 109(16)). Despite this, the State rejected the request and denied Dominican nationality to the alleged victims (supra paras. 109(17), 109(18) and 109(20)). 164. The Court observes that the request for late registration of birth was denied based on failure to comply with the presentation of 11 or 12 requirements that were not needed in the case of children under 13 years of age, and that were applied to the children, even though at the time of the request Dilcia Yean was 10 months old and Violeta Bosico was 12 years old (supra paras. 109(14), 109(17), 109(18) and 109(20)). 165. It should be observed that age is the legal norm used in the Dominican Republic to make a distinction in the application of requirements for late registration of birth. Under the applicable laws, the circumstances of the Yean and Bosico children did not differ from other Dominican children under 13 years of age in a way that could justify increasing the requirements for registering their birth. By applying to the alleged victims requirements that, as children under 13 years of age, did not correspond to them, the pertinent domestic norms were violated and a disproportionate and undue burden of proof was imposed on them. 166. The Court considers that, by applying to the children requirements that differed from those requisite for children under 13 years of age in order to obtain nationality, the State acted arbitrarily, without using reasonable and objective criteria, and in a way that was contrary to the superior interest of the child, which constitutes discriminatory treatment to the detriment of the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico. This situation placed them outside the State’s juridical system and kept them stateless, which placed them in a situation of extreme vulnerability, as regards the exercise and enjoyment of their rights.103 167. Bearing in mind that the alleged victims were children, the Court considers that the vulnerability arising from statelessness affected the free development of their personalities, since it impeded access to their rights and to the special protection to which they are entitled. 168. Furthermore, the Court considers that the discriminatory treatment imposed by the State on the Yean and Bosico children is situated within the context of the vulnerable situation of the Haitian population and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic, to which the alleged victims belong (supra para. 109(9)). 103 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra note 84, para. 56.