6 21. On June 19, 2000, the State indicated that the “authorization [...] of the Public Prosecutor [was] a procedural error, because the correct procedure is the one established in article 41 of [Act No.] 659” and that, if the representatives reject the Central Electoral Board’s authority to examine the matter, “they [should] resort to the ordinary courts.” 22. On February 22, 2001, during its one hundred and tenth regular session, the Commission adopted Report No. 28/01, in which it declared that the case was admissible and decided to proceed to consider the merits. In this regard, the Commission stated that: The petitioners do not have the legal standing to file judicial proceedings, since they must ask the Public Prosecutor to do this, according to article 41 of Act 659. Also, the arguments that appear in the file show that the Public Prosecutor did not authorize the judge of first instance to initiate the investigation in order to grant the late declaration of birth of the Yean and Bosico children, as established in the said article 41 of Act [No.] 659. […] In this case, the State has not specified in detail the appropriate and effective remedies that the petitioners should have exhausted. […] The State has not provided evidence that the administrative decisions of the Public Prosecutor or the Central Electoral Board may be modified by an appropriate remedy; and the State did not contradict the arguments of the petitioners with regard to the absence of mechanisms that would allow the petitioners to appear directly. […] The Commission considered that the petitioners had exhausted the remedies expressly established in the domestic laws in force and as established in article 46(1) of the American Convention. Also, there are no appropriate remedies in the domestic jurisdiction that should be exhausted before having recourse to the international instance, so that, in the instant case, the exception of exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(2)(a) applies. 23. On April 17, 2001, the representatives indicated that they were not interested in being a party to a friendly settlement in this case and wanted a hearing to be held in order to discuss the merits of the matter. 24. On August 24, 2001, the Commission held a meeting in the Dominican Republic attended band the representatives and the State, in order to reach a friendly settlement. On August 27, 2001, the Commission convened a hearing on the merits of the case. 25. On October 1, 2001, the State informed the Commission that “accepting the friendly settlement proposed by the Commission, it ha[d] decided to grant birth certificates to the children,” and attached copies of the records of the birth certificates in the names of the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico; both records were issued on September 25, 2001. 26. On October 17, 2001, the representatives informed the Commission that, even though the granting of the children’s birth certificates by the State was an important step forward, they considered that this action did not constitute a friendly settlement in this case, because, during the hearing of March 6, 2000, the State had not considered any of the points they had proposed. 27. On November 15, 2001, during its one hundred and thirteenth regular session, the Commission held a hearing on the merits of the case. The State indicated that the Dominican Republic did not have a policy of discrimination based