70 condition of vulnerability of the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico (supra paras. 172 and 173). XI ARTICLES 8 AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION) Arguments of the Commission 198. In relation to the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the Commission argued that: (a) The children’s mothers made a direct request to the Public Prosecutor of the District of Monte Plata to order the registration of their daughters in the Civil Status Registry Office, because the Public Prosecutor is the person responsible for monitoring and reporting on errors committed by the registrars. The Public Prosecutor rejected the petition and ordered the file to be returned to the Registry Office; (b) The State’s legislation establishes two procedural measures for revision of the decisions of the Civil Status Registry Office on requests for late declaration: the administrative procedure which devolves upon the Public Prosecutor and can also be reviewed by the Central Electoral Board; and that of the court of first instance. These measures do not provide for an appeal against a negative decision by the Registry Office. The Central Electoral Board is not a judicial authority, nor does it belong to the judicial system under Dominican law; moreover, its decisions cannot be appealed, so that the hierarchic recourse cannot be considered an effective remedy. The alleged victims lacked the legitimacy to file a legal action, and their requests were never reviewed by a competent court; (c) The remedy of amparo did not exist in law at the time of the facts, and the remedy of unconstitutionality was not appropriate in the case of administrative acts until 1998; and (d) The State has not investigated, sanctioned or repaired the alleged violations committed by its agents in this case. Arguments of the representatives 199. With regard to the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the representatives indicated that: (a) The State has not established a mechanism or procedure for appeal before a competent judge or court against a decision not to register an individual. Despite several reasonable attempts by the mothers of the children Dilcia and Violeta, the negative decision of the Civil Status Registrar was never reviewed by a competent and independent court; (b) There are two procedures for reviewing the decisions of a civil status registrar: (1) the review established in Act No. 659, and (2) review by the administrative authority responsible for recording the registrations, in this case the Central Electoral Board. The Central Electoral Board is not regulated