244. The representatives asked the Court to declare that the State was responsible for the violation of the rights to the recognition of juridical personality, to nationality, to a name, and to equal protection of the law (Articles 3, 20, 18 and 24 of the Convention, respectively), to the detriment of the same presumed victims mentioned by the Commission, together with non-compliance with the obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, as well as with Article 19 of the treaty with regard to the presumed victims who were children at the time of the facts. 280 245. For its part, the State denied its responsibility and asked the Court to declare that it had not violated the said rights to the detriment of the presumed victims mentioned. Similarly, it noted that “the procedure for the acquisition of nationality is a matter exclusively reserved to Dominican domestic law,” because it is an “inalienable attribute of State sovereignty,” only limited by respect for human rights and, specifically, the risk of statelessness and/or the existence of a discriminatory norm. 246. Regarding Willian Medina Ferreras, Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina and Rafaelito Pérez Charles, in its answering brief the State indicated that it had accepted that they are Dominicans and had provided the corresponding documentation, so that the arguments with regard to them “had no purpose.” Specifically with regard to the alleged violation of the right to a name of these individuals, the State indicated that this allegation was also meaningless, because they were all registered in the corresponding civil registry offices. Nevertheless, during the public hearing in this case, and subsequently (supra para. 89), the State also affirmed that the person presenting himself before the Court as Willian Medina Ferreras was not the person he said he was and, therefore, he was not Dominican (supra para. 63). It also presented information on administrative and judicial proceedings that questioned the validity of this man’s personal documents, as well as those of Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina and Carolina Isabel Medina, in view of the determination it had made in this regard (supra para. 145). 247. Regarding the persons who, it argued, had not obtained Dominican identity documents, 281 it alleged that, in its opinion, it was not obliged to grant them nationality as they would not become stateless, because: (a) they were all of Haitian origin, and (b) the State of Haiti applied the system of ius sanguinis to the recognition of nationality. 282 As regards the principle of equality before the law and of non-discrimination, it indicated that the inclusion of requirements in order to acquire nationality by birth in the territory of the State was not discriminatory per se. It pointed out that there was no reliable evidence of 280 Although they did not formally ask that the Court declare its violation, the representatives referred to the “right to identity.” They “affirm[ed] that the rights to juridical personality, to nationality and to a name, as well as the rights of the family […] compose the right to identity.” However, they indicated that, regarding “the rights of the family,” they would “refer to this in a later section” of the motions and arguments brief, and not in the one in which they were setting out their arguments on ‘the rights to juridical personality, to a name, to nationality and to equal protection of the law.” In other words, despite the conceptual indication that, in their understanding, “the right to identity” is linked to the “rights of the family,” the representatives did not present specific arguments on the supposed violation of the “rights of the family” in relation to the “right to identity.” 281 The State indicated the following persons, among others: Victor Jean, Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean, and Natalie Jean. 282 The State, in a report on the measures adopted to comply with the Commission’s recommendations in relation to the case issued by the Permanent Mission of the Dominican Republic to the Organization of American States on July 6, 2012, indicated that “in the cases of Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean, Natalie Jean and Victor Jean […], the Dominican State is very willing to comply with the recommendations of the Commission […], provided that the petitioners present the documentation - not merely assertions – that prove their birth in Dominican territory before January 26, 2010” (file before the Commission, f. 2164). However, in its answering brief, the State indicated that “[a]lthough the State acknowledges that Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean and Nat[…]alie Jean were born in Dominican territory, there is no evidence whatsoever, beyond his own statement, proving that Victor Jean was born in Dominican territory.” 81