Jean and Natalie Jean. Also, for similar reasons to those already indicated (supra paras. 316 and 317), they violate the right to equal protection of the law. 325. In conclusion, given its general scope, judgment TC/0168/13 constitutes a measure that fails to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, codified in Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to the rights to recognition of juridical personality, to a name, and to nationality recognized in Articles 3, 18 and 20 of this instrument, respectively, and in relation to these rights, the right to identity, as well as the right to equal protection of the law recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention; all in relation to failure to comply with the obligations established in Article 1(1) of this instrument. This non-compliance violated the said rights of Willian Medina Ferreras, Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina (deceased) and Rafaelito Pérez Charles. In addition, as indicated (supra paras. 323 and 324), the State violated these same articles of the Convention to the detriment of Victor Jean, Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean (deceased) and Natalie Jean owing to articles 6, 8 and 11 of Law No. 169-14. 326. The Court must now refer to the other norms indicated by the representatives: Circular No. 017 and Resolution 12-07 (supra paras. 241 and 302). 327. Circular No. 017, by establishing a retroactive policy, and also Resolution 12-07, by including provisions relating to “civil status certifications” issued prior to the publication of the Resolution, could eventually affect the presumed victims and must therefore be examined. 328. Circular No. 017 contains a directive to “Civil status officials” to examine “birth records when issuing copies or any document relating to civil status (paragraph 1), in order to detect “any irregularity” (paragraph 3). This is because the “Administrative Chamber has received reports that, in the past, some Civil Registry Offices issued birth certificates irregularly to foreign parents who had not proved their legal residence or status in the Dominican Republic.” The Court observes that Circular No. 017, in the same way as judgment TC/0168/13, establishes a policy with retroactive application. However, since it does not explain the criteria that the Administrative Chamber must use to “proceed,” in does not appear that, of itself, Circular No. 017 can affect the rights of the victims in this case, 367 and the representatives have not presented sufficient arguments to the contrary. Consequently, in the understanding that, should the need arise, the Administrative Chamber may act in conformity with the American Convention and the standards established in this Judgment, the Court does not consider that this norm, in itself, is contrary to the American Convention. 329. The consideranda of Resolution No. 12-07 indicate that the Central Electoral Board, “generally […] on request,” “carries out […] permanent verifications of civil status records in the files of the civil registry offices and the Central Civil Registry Office,” and that it has “frequently” noted “serious irregularities” in the records, but that judicial proceedings are required in order to annul them. Consequently, the Central Electoral Board “must implement a mechanism […] that prevents the issue of certifications based on irregular civil status records or entries that are evidently illegal, without the need to exhaust the corresponding judicial proceedings, unless these documents are issued for reasons that 367 In this regard, expert witness Gómez Pérez indicated that “under [Resolution 12-2007]” the “falsity” of the “civil status certifications […] suspected of being false,” would eventually be decided by the courts of justice, and added that “the person concerned” can “have recourse to the corresponding court to contest the decision or the opinion of the Central Electoral Board, and in oral public and adversarial proceedings, the Court will decide whether it accepts the recommendation of the Central Electoral Board or the petition of the person concerned” (cf. expert opinion of Cecilio Gómez Pérez provided during the public hearing). 106