56 124. The State did not submit any specific arguments concerning Article 18 of the Convention. Considerations of the Court 125. Article 20 of the American Convention establishes that: 1. 2. 3. 126. Every person has the right to a nationality. Every person has the right to the nationality of the State in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or of the right to change it. Article 24 of the American Convention stipulates that: All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. 127. Article 19 of the American Convention stipulates 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. 128. Article 3 of the American Convention establishes that: Every person has the right to recognition as a person before the law. 129. Article 18 of the American Convention stipulates that: Every person has the right to a given name and to the surnames of his parents or that of one of them. The law shall regulate the manner in which this right shall be ensured for all, by the use of assumed names if necessary. 130. Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes that: 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. 131. The Court will take into consideration its competence ratione temporis (supra paras. 4 and 100 to 108) and the facts of the case sub judice to determine whether the Dominican Republic is responsible for the alleged violation of the said articles of the American Convention, which are considered together in this chapter. 132. The Court considers it necessary to emphasize that, although the rejection of the application for late registration of birth in the Registry Office took place on March 5, 1997, and the decision of the Public Prosecutor confirming this rejection was issued on July 20, 1998, both facts determined that the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico had no nationality until September 25, 2001. Consequently, this denial persisted after March 25, 1999, the date on which the Dominican Republic accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court; and this is the reason why this Court affirms that it is competent to consider the refusal (supra paras. 4 and 100 to 108). 133. The Court notes that when the State accepted the Court’s contentious