28 c) Proposed by the Commission and the representatives 1) Débora E. Soler Munczek, psychologist She interviewed the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico, and also their next of kin on February 1, 2 and 3, 2005. She found that the environment of discrimination and stigmatization against those of Haitian origin who live in the Dominican Republic has permeated the psychological structure not only of the alleged victims and their next of kin, but also of the whole community. Both children showed evidence of an acceptable social adaptation; however, their self-esteem, self-perception and concept of trust and personal safety and with regard to the world around them have been affected significantly owing to this environment of discrimination and stigmatization. The alleged victims and their next of kin are frightened of the reprisals they could suffer because they are defending their rights; and even though the families are more relaxed now that they have received the birth certificates issued by the State, their fear of deportation persists. Both families consider that the education of the children Dilcia and Violeta is an essential factor for their socio-economic future, so they have made significant financial and legal sacrifices to preserve this right. 2) Frederick John Packer, lawyer and professor Issues relating to nationality have traditionally fallen within the State’s jurisdiction, but principles of international law, such as the right of individuals not to be stateless and the obligation of States to protect human rights have limited this power in recent years. Nationality, as a legal term, is traditionally defined based on two principles: on blood (or family heritage) and on place of birth. However, international treaties – such as the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the European Convention on Nationality – and international courts – such as the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice – have adopted the principle of an effective connection between the individual and the State to define nationality. This change reflects the interest of States to improve interState relations and their desire to protect human rights, particularly of vulnerable individuals, such as children and women. The effective connection between the individual and the State may be proved by various elements considered together. Thus any fact or act by an individual or the State that shows a real union between them satisfies this purpose; for example, the place of birth and the place of residence, or the identification of the applicant with the people of the said State. States can choose the administrative procedure they prefer in order to grant nationality to those who request it. However, they are obliged to make this procedure simple and reasonable, especially when the applicants are individuals who would otherwise remain stateless. The two international treaties mentioned above order the State to grant nationality automatically to any person born on its territory who would otherwise remain stateless. In other cases, nationality is granted following a request made after a period of residence (either 3 or 5 years, depending on the treaty). Although they are related, the procedures for nationality and for birth registrations are different and have different purposes. The nationalization procedure formally establishes the connection between the individual and the State; thus the individual can have recourse to the State’s protection. In contrast, the main purpose of the