consequence, was also violated, has already been pointed out (supra paras. 265 to 268). 346 300. The Court also considers that, in this case, the State’s actions did not take into consideration the best interests of the child by failing to grant documentation to Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean and Natalie Jean, who were children at the time of the facts and after March 25, 1999. 301. Based on the above, the Court considers that the State violated the rights to recognition of juridical personality, to a name, and to nationality recognized in Articles 3, 18 and 20 of the American Convention, as well as – owing to this series of violations – the right to identity, in relation to non-compliance with the obligations established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Victor Jean, Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean and Natalie Jean, and also in relation to the rights of the child recognized in Article 19 of this instrument, to the detriment of the last three of these persons. C.5.3. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to its Articles 1(1), 3, 18, 20 and 24 302. The representatives also alleged the violation of Article 2 of the American Convention in relation to the right to nationality, based on different norms and decisions of the Dominican authorities issued following the expulsions (supra para. 241): General Migration Law No. 285-04 enacted in 2004; Resolution 02-07 of the Central Electoral Board; “Circular No. 017 […], of March 29, 2007, of the Administrative Chamber of the Central Electoral Board; Resolution No. 12-07 of December 10, 2007, of the plenary session of the Central Electoral Board,” and judgment TC/0168/13. Meanwhile, the State presented as a supervening fact Law No. 169-14 of May 23, 2014 (supra para. 13), which is regulated by Decree No. 250-14 (supra para. 146). 303. Before examining the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention, the Court deems it pertinent to indicate that, in this Judgment, it has already analyzed the close relationship between the rights to nationality and to recognition of juridical personality, insofar as the former constitutes a prerequisite to exercise certain rights, and the latter, “involves the ability to be a holder of rights (ability and enjoyment) and of obligations,” as well as its connection to the right to a name, which constitutes “a basic and essential element of a person’s identity” (supra paras. 265 to 268), and concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of the said rights and, owing to this series of violations, of the right to identity (supra paras. 276 and 301). 304. However, the representatives only alleged non-compliance with Article 2 of the Convention in relation to the right to nationality. Neither the Inter-American Commission in its brief submitting the case or the Merits report, nor the representatives in their motions and arguments brief included arguments with regard to this non-compliance in 346 Regarding the arguments of the Commission and the representatives in relation to the alleged discriminatory “impact” or “application” of “the law” or its “interpretation or application” (supra paras. 233 and 238), this Court refers to its analysis below (infra paras. 314 to 317 and 323). In addition, as already mentioned (supra footnote 280), the representatives indicated a connection between the right to identity and “the right to a family,” without presenting specific arguments in this regard. This failure to present specific arguments on the “right to a family” prevents the Court from examining the supposed violation of that right. This is without prejudice to the analysis of Article 17 of the Convention that, based on other grounds, will be made in Chapter X. 98