the Central Electoral Board, and Resolution No. 12-07 of December 10, 2007, of the plenary session of the Central Electoral Board.” The first one because “it prohibited the Civil Registry officials from responding to any request relating to birth certificates that were possibly ‘irregular,’” because “[w]hile their birth certificates are investigated, […] the Dominicans of Haitian descent concerned are trapped in a legal limbo.” The second, because “it established the ‘provisional suspension of civil status certificates that appeared to be irregular.’” They stated that “the measure, in addition to being discriminatory, was applied retroactively to those born before 2007.” Lastly, when outlining their arguments on the violation of Article 2, they referred to judgment TC/0168/13, which will be examined below. 242. On October 2, 2013, the representatives informed the Court of judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court of September 23, 2013 (supra para. 13). In this regard, they recalled that article 11 of “the 1994 Constitution (and its precedents since 1929) established that [… ‘a]ll those born on the territory of the Republic, with the exception of the legitimate children of foreign diplomats resident in the country or aliens who are in transit,” are Dominicans, and that this judgment “established that ‘traditional Dominican jurisprudence recognizes as aliens in transit those who […] lack a legal residence permit.” 279 They pointed out that this interpretation is “in open contrast” to the Court’s decision in its judgment in the Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic in relation to the concept of “in transit,” because the Constitutional Court defined this as a status that may be permanent, irrespective of the time spent and the ties developed in the State’s territory. In addition, they stressed that, in its fifth operative paragraph, the judgment ordered the Central Electoral Board to undertake a comprehensive review of the birth records since 1929 and to make a list of “aliens who were registered irregularly.” They alleged that this “affects all the [presumed] victims of this case, because they were all born after 1929, […] and also jeopardizes the right to nationality of those who have been recognized as Dominicans.” 243. Lastly, on June 17, 2014, the representatives referred to Decree No. 327-13 of November 29, 2013, and Law No. 169-14 of May 23, 2014, norms that the State presented as supervening facts (supra paras. 13, 126 and 180, and infra para. 251). They indicated that Decree No. 327-13, which establishes a regularization plan for aliens in an irregular situation who comply with a series of requirements that make this “impossible for a group in […] a vulnerable situation, […] such as the situation of most of the Haitian population in an irregular situation, so that [they] are unable to access the regularization plan.” With regard to Law No. 169-14, the representatives asserted that, in the case of those born in Dominican territory who had obtained documentation and who are children of foreign parents in an irregular situation, the law “makes the granting of nationality conditional on an administrative requirement that was never previously established in any Constitution; in other words, the formal registration procedure.” With regard to the persons who are in the same situation as the former, but who have never been registered, they indicated that Law No. 169-14, insofar as it establishes a “naturalization” procedure, treats them as aliens, ignoring ius soli. They “considered that the Court should analyze these norms in detail, applying the standards established in the inter-American system in relation to the right to non-discrimination, the right to nationality, and the obligation to eradicate and to prevent statelessness.” 279 They noted that, in this regard, the Constitutional Court had reiterated the interpretation of the concept of “aliens in transit” made by the Dominican Supreme Court in the judgment of December 14, 2005, that forms part of the probative framework in this case (Supreme Court of Justice, Judgment of December 14, 2005. No. 9, file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex A19, fs. 3366 to 3373). 80