respectively, of these Constitutions established in very similar wording that the following were Dominicans: “[e]veryone born in the territory of the Republic, with the exception of the legitimate children of aliens resident in the country as part of a diplomatic mission or of persons in transit” (1955 Constitution), and that “Dominicans are: 1. [e]veryone born in the territory of the Republic, with the exception of the legitimate children of aliens resident in the country as part of a diplomatic mission or of persons in transit” (1994 Constitution). 330 281. With regard to the interpretation of the constitutional exception relating to the children of “aliens in transit,” the Court underscores that it has already noted that a judgment of the Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the National District of October 16, 2003, established that “the illegal status of the alien cannot be compared to the concept of ‘in transit,’ because they are different notions.” 331 282. Meanwhile, article 36(10) of General Migration Law No. 285-04, published on August 27, 2004 (supra para. 177), states: “[n]on-residents are considered persons in transit for the purposes of the application of article 11 of the Constitution.” 283. The Supreme Court of Justice, “acting as Constitutional Court,” in a judgment of December 14, 2005, established that: When article 11(1) of the [1994] Constitution excludes the legitimate children of foreign diplomats resident in the country and aliens who are in transit from acquiring Dominican nationality by ius soli, this means that these persons, those in transmit, have in some way been authorized to enter the country and remain there for a certain time; that if by mandate of the Constitution, in these circumstances which are evidently legitimate, an alien gives birth in national territory, her child is not born a Dominican, all the more so, the child of a foreign mother who, at the moment of giving birth is in an irregular situation and, therefore, cannot justify her entry into and permanence in the Dominican Republic cannot be a Dominican. 332 resident in national territory [and for whom] no entries into and departures from the country are recorded by the authorized immigration control posts” “have never been domiciled in national territory” (Council of State of Colombia, File No. 1653, of June 30, 2005; Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment T-1060/10, of December 16, 2010). 330 Both texts are also similar to the wording of the 1966 Constitution, article 11(1) of which indicates that: “[t]he following are Dominican: 1. [a]ll those born in the territory of the Republic, with the exception of the legitimate children of aliens who are diplomats resident in the country or those who are in the country in transit.” Also, article 10(c) of Immigration Law No. 95 of April 14, 1939, in force at the time of the facts, established that: “Those born in the Dominican Republic are considered nationals of the Dominican Republic, whether or not they are nationals of other countries.” In addition, the State provided as evidence the Civil Code of August 2007, article 9 of which establishes that: “[t]he following are Dominicans: First – all those who were born or will be born in the territory of the Republic, whatever the nationality of their parents. For the effects of this provision, the legitimate children of the aliens who reside in it while representing or in the service of their own country shall not be considered as born in the territory of the Republic.” 331 Cf. Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, para. 154. The citation corresponds to judgment No. 453 of the Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the National District of October 16, 2003. 332 Supreme Court of Justice, acting as Constitutional Court, Judgment of December 14, 2005. Expert witness Gómez Pérez, when testifying during the public hearing, confirmed that “in 2005, […] the Supreme Court of Justice […] acting as Constitutional Court, interpreted that the concept of ‘transit,’ established in the Constitution refers to the attribution of Dominican nationality to those persons, children of aliens, whose situation in the Dominican Republic is regular […] and that, to the contrary, […] the children of aliens in transit in the Dominican Republic, do not qualify for Dominican nationality” (expert opinion provided by Cecilio Gómez Pérez before the Court during the public hearing). Meanwhile, expert witness Rodríguez Gómez indicated that “[t]he main effect of the judgment [of December 14, 2005,] of the Supreme Court of Justice is that, based on it, the Central Electoral Board began to apply administratively a policy of denationalization of an indeterminate number of Dominicans based on the position that they could not prove that, at the time of their birth, the situation of their parents was legal.” He linked this to the issue and application of Circular 017 of the President of the Central Electoral Board (supra para. 177) (cf. Expert opinion of Cristóbal Rodríguez Gómez provided by affidavit). 92