3

Domínico-Haitianas [Movement of Dominican-Haitian Women] (hereinafter
“MUDHA”), submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission based on the
“denial to [the Yean and Bosico children] of their birth certificates, which [would]
allow them to have a nationality and a name; [this refusal ...] curtailed their right to
an education, because, among other matters, without a birth certificate it is not
possible to attend school in the [Dominican] Republic.”
6.
On April 27, 1999, the Commission received an amended petition in English
and a request for precautionary measures, submitted by Genaro Rincón Miesse,
representative of MUDHA, María Claudia Pulido, representative of the Center for
Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”), and by Laurel Fletcher and
Roxana Altholz, representatives of the International Human Rights Law Clinic, Boalt
Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (hereinafter “International
Human Rights Law Clinic”), as representatives of the petitioners. On June 11, 1999,
the final version of the petition in Spanish was submitted to the Inter-American
Commission. In it, the petitioners’ representatives alleged the violation of Articles 3,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the American Convention, and also Articles VI,
VII, VIII, XII, XVII, XIX, XX and XXIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of Man (hereinafter “the American Declaration”), because “refusing to register
[the children] based [on] their legal status and the origin of their parents
constitute[d] a violation of [their] rights [...and] endangered their immediate and
long-term personal safety and wellbeing.”
7.
On July 7, 1999, the Commission opened the case, forwarded the pertinent
parts of the petition to the State, requested it to provide information concerning the
facts and, in accordance with its Rules of Procedure in force at the time, asked the
State to provide “any information that [would] enable [the Court ...] to assess
whether the remedies under domestic law ha[d] been exhausted.”
8.
On August 27, 1999, the Commission requested the Dominican Republic to
adopt precautionary measures in favor of the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico,
in order “to grant [the children] forthwith the necessary guarantees to avoid them
being expelled from Dominican territory and so that Violeta Bosica (sic) m[ight]
continue attending school regularly, and receiving the education offered to all other
Dominican children.”
9.
On August 30, 1999, the State requested the Inter-American Commission to
provide it with information on “the reasons that [had] led it to request precautionary
measures at this time and not previously or subsequently,” and also about any new
facts that justified this request. On September 2, 1999, the Commission informed
the State that the request for precautionary measures referred to a situation that
“me[t] the requirements of truth and urgency, and the need to prevent irreparable
harm to persons.”
10.
On September 30, 1999, having been granted an extension, the State
informed the Commission that “the Central Electoral Board, the organ to which the
Registry Office and the officials of the civil status department are attached, ha[d]

3

This Court notes that, according to her birth certification, Solain appears with the last name
“Pie”; however, in various documents submitted by the parties, she appears with the last name “Pierre”;
the Court therefore considers it is the same persons. For the effects of this judgment, the name “Solain
Pierre” will be used, as she is usually known.

Select target paragraph3