Girls v. Dominican Republic, as regards “the difficulty of [the mothers] to travel from the bateyes to the hospitals in the town, the limited financial resources, and the fear of meeting hospital officials, police agents, or officials from the local municipality and being deported.’” In this context, with regard to the presumed victims who were children at the time of the events, 277 the Commission indicated that “this case involves a sequence of events beginning with the refusal to register births, which made it impossible to obtain nationality and accede to basic services such as health and education; […] adversely affecting the normal and full development of their persona and their life project.” Therefore, it concluded that the State had failed to comply with its international obligations, by not adopting the necessary measures that took into account the best interests of the child, guaranteeing his or her right to be heard, protecting the right to identity, and ensuring the protection of children on its territory. 235. The Commission indicated that the Constitutional Court’s judgment TC/0168/13 of September 23, 2013: Could have the effect of retroactively denationalizing thousands of people who had acquired Dominican nationality in application of the Constitution in force at the time, [and] could represent an obstacle to the restitution of the right to nationality of the victims in this case, one of the essential measures of reparation. Furthermore, on June 24, 2014, “without making a ruling on the content of [Law 16914],” presented by the State as a supervening fact (supra paras. 13, 126, 180, and infra para. 251), it “consider[ed] that this law does not provide any evidence as regards whether or not a situation of structural discrimination existed. In addition, the Commission is unaware of how it could affect the [presumed] victims in this case.” 236. The Commission concluded that the State had violated the right to juridical personality and the right to nationality recognized in Articles 3 and 20 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect rights without discrimination, and the principle of equality and non-discrimination established in Articles 1(1) and 24 of the Convention to the detriment of Willian Medina Ferreras, Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina (deceased), Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Victor Jean, Victoria Jean (deceased), Miguel Jean and Natalie Jean, as well as the rights of the child, recognized in Article 19 of this instrument, to the detriment of the presumed victims who were children at the time of the facts. 237. The representatives argued that the officials who took part in the expulsions of Willian Medina Ferreras and Rafaelito Pérez Charles and of the children Awilda Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina and Luis Ney Medina disregarded their juridical personality, because, even though they had documentation that proved their identity and nationality, the officials did not request this. To the contrary, in the cases in which the victims showed this documentation it was not received or, in the worst case, it was taken from them. The representatives stated that this is also connected to a violation of the right to a name. They also asserted that all the alleged violations were especially egregious in the case of the victims who were children at the time of the events, because they were in a situation of special vulnerability. 238. The representatives also indicated that, although Victor Jean, Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean and Natalie Jean were born in the Dominican Republic, they do not have documents to substantiate their identity. The representatives argued that it was “impossible” for those of Haitian descent born in the Dominican Republic to obtain identity documents 277 Among them, the Commission indicated Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean and Natalie Jean. 78