rights (supra para. 303). Consequently, in this section, the Court will examine the arguments presented by the representatives on the right to nationality, extending its analysis to the other rights that have been mentioned, insofar as the Court has already examined them and declared that they have been violated. 307. The Court notes that there is no evidence that General Migration Law No. 285-04 enacted in 2004, and Resolution 02-07 of the Central Electoral Board which created and brought into effect the Birth Register for the children of a foreign mother in the Dominican Republic, norms indicated by the representatives (supra para. 241), were applied to the victims in this case or affected the enjoyment of their rights in any other way. Hence, the Court is unable to rule on their supposed incompatibility with the American Convention. 308. Nevertheless, the Court finds it necessary to rule on judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court of September 23, 2013, and, owing to its close relationship with that judgment, on Law No. 169-14 (infra paras. 319 to 324). Also, for the reasons outlined below (infra paras. 326 to 328), it is pertinent that the Court examine Circular No. 017 of March 29, 2007, of the President of the Administrative Chamber of the Central Electoral Board, and Resolution 12-2007 of December 10, 2007, of the plenary session of the Central Electoral Board. 309. Regarding judgment TC/0168/13, the representatives presented this as a “supervening fact,” which the State contested (supra paras. 13 and 250). In the case of the above-mentioned Circular and Resolution, it should be clarified that they were attached by the representatives to their motions and arguments brief as documentary evidence. 351 310. The Court considers that, although judgment TC/0168/13 was not the result of proceedings in which the presumed victims were a party, and no one has indicated that it applied directly to them, it not only establishes the interpretation of norms that are relevant to their situation, because it referred to “all the Dominican Constitutions as of 1929,” as mentioned (supra para. 286), and also ordered a general review policy as of 1929 in order to detect “aliens who are registered irregularly,” which may affect the enjoyment of the right to nationality of the victims considered in this chapter. 352 351 Regarding the said Circular and Resolution, expert witness Rodríguez Gómez stated that “[b]oth directives have resulted in a de facto process of denationalization that, in turn, has led to a situation of statelessness for an indeterminate number of descendants of Haitian immigrants.” According to expert witness Rodríguez Gómez, Circular 017 was issued as a result of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 14, 2005 (supra para. 283). The expert witness also stated that, based on this Circular, the Central Electoral Board began to revoke the nationality of Dominicans who were born before the new General Migration Law 285-04 had been enacted and the Supreme Court of Justice had delivered its judgment from which, in the opinion of the expert witness, “a mandate for retroactive application” cannot be inferred (cf. Expert opinion of Cristóbal Rodríguez Gómez provided by affidavit). Meanwhile, expert witness Gómez Pérez asserted that Resolution 12-2007 was issued because the inspection units of the Central Electoral Board had verified a series of anomalies in the issue of civil status certifications, particularly birth certificates, as a result of requests for identity and electoral cards made by numerous individuals [and that] it guarantees […] due process of law in favor of the holder of any civil status certification who is suspected of being irregular (cf. Expert opinion of Cecilio Gómez Pérez provided by affidavit). 352 In this regard, even though judgment TC/0168/13 is not a law, the text reveals that the decisions made in it have general implications that go beyond the parties involved in the respective proceedings. Not only was this not contested by the State (or by the representatives or the Commission), but was also revealed by the Dominican Republic because it advised that it is “binding for all the public powers and organs of the State,” and its words reveal that it affects those born in Dominican territory of foreign parents who do not have at least one parent who is a “legal resident” (supra para. 250). According to the Court’s case law, the possibility of the Court examining a general law or norm, also including Resolution No. 12-07, Circular No. 017 and Law No. 169-14, is not narrowly restricted to their having been applied to the victims in a case because, depending on the case, it may also be in order for the Court to rule on norms or measures of a general nature when, even in the absence of a specific and actual action applying them to the presumed victims, their impact or effects on the validity, 100