Constitution of the Republic for attribution of Dominican nationality through ius soli, which shall be called the List of aliens irregularly registered in the Civil Registry of the Dominican Republic. (iii) Create special annual birth records for aliens from June 21, 1929, to April 18, 2007, date on which the Central Electoral Board brought into effect the Birth Register of a child to a foreign mother non-resident in the Dominican Republic by Resolution 02-2007; and, then, to transfer administratively the births that appear on the List of aliens irregularly registered in the Civil Registry of the Dominican Republic to new birth records of aliens, for the respective year. (iv) Notify all births transferred in accordance with the preceding paragraph to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so that the latter may make the corresponding notifications, to the person who the said birth concerns, and to the consulates and/or embassies or diplomatic delegations, as applicable, for the pertinent legal effects 357 (italics added). 313. The Court considers that this extract from the judgment reveals an order, mandated by the Constitutional Court, for a general policy to be applied retroactively to all those persons born in the Dominican Republic since June 21, 1929, who include the victims in this case. 358 In addition, the State has advised that this order is binding for all the public powers and organs of the State, and that the State had “taken different measures” to comply with it (supra para. 250). 314. The Court concludes, therefore, that judgment TC/0168/13 includes a general measure that would affect the presumed victims’ enjoyment of their rights. Thus, it would deprive the following, who have Dominican nationality and possessed official documentation to prove this at the time that they were removed from Dominican Republic (supra paras. 201 and 221), of legal certainty regarding the enjoyment of their right to nationality: Willian Medina Ferreras, Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina and Rafaelito Pérez Charles. This is because their birth certificates or their registration in the birth records will be subject to review by the Central Electoral Board and they may have been “registered irregularly.” This also infringes the rights to recognition of juridical personality, and to a name, as well as the right to identity, owing to these violations taken as a whole. 315. Judgment TC/0168/13 has ordered a retroactive policy based on the understanding that, prior to 2010, domestic law envisaged the impossibility of those born in Dominican territory of parents who were aliens residing irregularly in the country acquiring Dominican nationality based on ius soli. Thus, given the resulting distinction between such persons and others also born in Dominican territory, it is necessary to verify whether the right of the presumed victims to equality before the law was violated. 357 In judgment TC/0168/13, the Constitutional Court noted: “Regarding the measures that must be adopted, the Constitutional Court finds the following: […] Migration Act No. 285 (of 2004) […and] Migration Regulations No. 631 (of 2011) […] replaced Immigration Law No. 95 of […] 1939, and its implementing Regulations No. 279, of the same year, that were in force for almost 70 years; which is an overlong period during which the absence of legal provisions encouraged the creation of conditions that have had a negative impact on the Dominican Civil Registry. However, fortunately, today the country has these two important legal instruments, whose provisions contain the solutions to the current migratory problem and restore the reliability of our registration system.” After referring in detail to the contents of these (and other) new sources of law, the Constitutional Court proceeded to consider: “In this regard, it should be pointed out that the elements of this case oblige the Constitutional Court to adopt measures that go beyond the particular situation of Juliana Dequis (or Deguis) Pierre; conferring on this judgment effects inter comunia, because it tends to protect the fundamental rights of a very large group of individuals who are in situations that, from a factual and legal perspective, are the same or similar to that of the appellant. Thus, the [Constitutional] Court finds that, in cases such as this, the application for amparo goes beyond the sphere of the specific violation claimed by the appellant, and that its protective mechanism should have an expanded and binding authority that permits the protection of fundamental rights to be extended to other persons outside these proceedings who are in similar situations” (cf. Constitutional Court, judgment TC/0168/13, pp. 91 to 97). 358 In this regard, expert witness Carlos Quesada stated that the judgment of the Constitutional Court “gives rise to […] the danger of the wholesale denationalization of Dominicans of Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic [because] birth records as of 1929 will be examined, and if they are found to be irregular, this could lead to the denationalization of persons who today have Dominican nationality” (cf. Expert opinion provided by Carlos Quesada Quesada before the Court during the public hearing). 102