of the child 269 and the right to equality before the law, 270 as well as to the obligations to respect and ensure the rights without discrimination 271 and to adopt domestic legal provisions. 272 226. Two types of arguments have been presented, and will be evaluated separately. The first situation alleged is the destruction of identity documents of Dominicans, or the authorities’ failure to take them into account at the time of the expulsions, and the second is the failure to register persons of Haitian descent born in Dominican territory. 227. In addition, regarding the arguments relating to the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, and the right to a name, the Court notes that the Commission did not allege the violation of Articles 2 273 and 18 of the Convention, whereas the representatives did. 274 In this regard, the Court reiterates that “the presumed victims or their representatives may cite rights other than those included by the Commission, based on the facts that the Commission has presented”; 275 hence, it is admissible to examine the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. 228. Lastly, regarding the necessary preliminary clarifications, it is pertinent to recall that the Court has determined that it is not possible to consider that the birthplace of Bersson Gelin, Jeanty Fils-Aimé, Nené Fils-Aimé, Diane Fils-Aimé, Antonio Fils-Aimé and Endry FilsAimé has been proved (supra paras. 86 and 87). This prevents the Court from analyzing arguments about the nationality of these persons, or presumed violations of rights linked to this. Consequently, the Court will not describe or analyze the arguments related to the alleged violations, to the detriment of these persons, of the rights to nationality, recognition of juridical personality, and name and, in relation to these three rights taken as a whole, the right to identity; or the violation of the right to equal protection of the law inasmuch as this was alleged in relation to the preceding rights. Similarly, it will not 269 Article 19 of the Convention establishes that: “Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the State.” 270 Article 24 of the American Convention stipulates: “All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.” 271 Article 1(1) of the American Convention states: “The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 272 Article 2 of the Convention indicates: “Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 273 Nevertheless in the Merits report, the Commission recommended that the State adopt measures “including a review of domestic legislation on registering and granting nationality to persons of Haitian descent born in Dominican territory, and the repeal of those provisions that directly or indirectly have a discriminatory impact based on race or national origin, taking into account the principle of ius soli established by the State, the State obligation to prevent statelessness, and applicable standards of international human rights law.” 274 Regarding Article 2, in their motions and arguments brief, when setting out arguments with regard to Articles 3, 18, 20 and 24 of the Convention, the representatives mentioned and transcribed Article 2, but failed to include arguments to justify its violation. However, it should be noted that, in answer to a question posed by the Court during the public hearing, the representatives indicated that the alleged violation of Article 2 was “linked to the violation of the right to nationality and the rights to juridical personality, of the family and to privacy, because [they] consider[ed] that the violation ar[o]se from the undue application of article 11 of the Constitution […], that, as [they] explain[ed] in [their] arguments has considered that ‘in transit’ is equal to ‘an irregular migratory situation���; hence [their] allegation relating to Article 2.” However, when including allegation in their final written arguments, they indicated other norms (infra paras. 241 and 242) 275 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, para. 155, and Case of Veliz Franco v. Guatemala, para. 132. 76