A.4. Pertinent domestic legal framework 172. In this case it is pertinent to refer to certain domestic laws. A.4.1. Laws on Dominican nationality A.4.1.1. Laws in force at the time of the facts 173. The Constitution of the Dominican Republic in force at the time of the facts was the 1994 Constitution, promulgated on August 14, 1994. 155 Acquisition of nationality was regulated in article 11 of the Constitution. This established the principle of ius soli in order to obtain nationality, with two constitutional exceptions relating to the children of diplomats, and to persons in transit in the country (infra para. 280). 174. The 1994 Constitution was in force when some of the presumed victims were born 156 and, in some cases, previous Constitutions such as the Constitutions of 1955 157 and 1966 158 (supra para. 146), which included the rule in similar wording. 159 175. Article 10(c) of Immigration Law No. 95 of April 14, 1939, 160 in force at the time of the facts, established that “[p]ersons born in the Dominican Republic are considered nationals of the Dominican Republic, whether or not they are nationals of other countries” (infra footnote 330). 176. Section V of Immigration Regulations No. 279 of May 12, 1939, 161 in force at the time of the facts, defines “transients” as aliens who try to enter the Republic with the main purpose of continuing across the country towards another country, and establishes a limit of 10 days to this end. 162 A.4.1.2. Innovations in legislation and jurisprudence after 2004 155 Constitution of the Dominican Republic promulgated on August 14, 1994, and published in Official Gazette of the Dominican Republic No. 9890 on August 20, 1994 (file of annexes to the answering brief, fs. 5174 to 5215). 156 Namely: Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean and Natalie Jean. 157 Namely: Antonio Sensión and Victor Jean. 158 Namely: Awilda Medina, Willian Medina, Ana Lidia Sensión, Reyita Antonia Sensión, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Bersson Gelin, and Markenson Jean, Diane Fils-Aimé, Antonio Fils-Aimé and Endry Fils-Aimé. 159 1955 Constitution, Article 12(2), and 1966 Constitution, Article 11(1) (infra para. 280 and footnote 330). 160 Immigration Law No. 95 of April 14, 1939, published in Official Gazette No. 5299, in force since June 1, 1939 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 14, fs. 3286 to 3296 and file of annexes to the answering brief, fs. 5689 to 5698). 161 Immigration Regulations No. 279 of May 12, 1939, enacted in conformity with Immigration Law No. 95 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, fs. 3308 to 3318). It should be noted that the representatives and the State refer to the same regulations, but present different versions of the document. In the version provided by the representatives the implementing regulations are entitled “Migration Regulations,” and in the one presented by the State, they are entitled “Immigration Regulations” (file of annexes to the answering brief, fs. 6045 to 6056). In this Judgment they will be referred to as “Migration Regulations.” 162 Expert witness Cristóbal Rodríguez Gómez stated that the “new” Migration Law was promulgated on August 15, 2004, however, its implementing regulations were only adopted recently, “merely a few months ago” (at the time of his opinion), which meant that, “in many cases, immigration issues […] were managed on the basis of the implementing regulations for a law that had been repealed: the 1939 Law (expert opinion of Cristóbal Rodríguez Gómez provided by affidavit on October 1, 2013, file of preliminary objections, merits and reparations, fs. 1723 to 1729). 58