described as discriminatory towards Dominicans of Haitian origin. In addition, this group was disproportionately affected by the introduction of the differentiated criteria. 363 The foregoing results in a violation of the right to equality before the law recognized in Article 24 of the Convention. 319. Furthermore, as indicated, on June 9, 2014, the State presented “Law No. 169-14 of May 23, 2014,” as a “supervening fact” (supra para. 13), 364 which is regulated by Decree No. 250-14 (supra para. 146). In view of the close relationship between these norms and judgment TC/0168/13, the Court finds it necessary to refer to them. 320. The consideranda of Law No. 169-14 indicate that the law is based on the provisions of judgment TC/0168/13 and that, in this regard, “regularizing civil status records does not involve a denial or questioning of the interpretation provided by the Constitutional Court.” The articles of the law make a distinction between the situation of certain persons registered in the Civil Registry and others who are not registered. 321. Regarding the former, article 2 of Law No. 169-14 orders the “regulariza[tion of] […] the records of the persons who” as indicated in paragraph (a) of the preceding article, are “children born in national territory during the period between June 16, 1929, and April 18, 2007, of foreign non-resident fathers and mothers, who were registered in the records of the Dominican Civil Registry based on documents that were not recognized by the relevant norms in force at the time of the registration.” The Court has not been provided with sufficient evidence to verify that the presumed victims are in this situation, so that the analysis of articles 2 to 5 of Law No. 169-14 in relation to the persons mentioned in paragraph (a) of its article 1 is not relevant. 365 322. With regard to the children “of foreign parents in an irregular migrator situation who, having been born in national territory do not appear registered in the Dominican Civil 363 In this regard, added to the reference made to the context of this case (supra para. 171), it should be indicated that, in its judgment TC/1068/13 the Constitutional Court indicated not only that Haitian immigration in the Dominican Republic is greater than that from other countries, but also that a very high percentage of this Haitian immigration is irregular. Thus, it stated in this judgment that “[t]here are 100,638 foreigners from countries other than Haiti, while those of Haitian origin amount to 668,145. […] Haitian immigrants and their descendants […] represent 6.87% of the population living in national territory. According to information published by the Dominican press, the General Directorate of Immigration of the Dominican Republic has only legally registered 11,000 Haitian immigrants, which represents a very small percentage, 0.16%, of the total.” In the Dominican Republic, the population of Haitians and those of Haitian descent is greater that the population of aliens or those of foreign descent from other countries and, also, a percentage of Haitian migrants are not “legally registered.” In addition, contextual references have been made to the difficulties encountered to obtain personal documentation and the vulnerability of Haitians and those of Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic (supra para. 171). 364 On the same occasion, the State also submitted as a supervening fact Decree No. 327-13, which indicates that it has been issued by order of the Constitutional Court in the said judgment. The Decree establishes the “terms and conditions” for aliens who are living irregularly in Dominican territory to acquire a “documented legal status under […] General Migration Law No. 285-04.” Its provisions with regard to “aliens” and the conditions for regularizing their permanence in Dominican territory are not related to the question of the right to nationality and, therefore, cannot have an impact on the presumed victims in this regard. Consequently, it is not relevant for the Court to examine the norm in question. 365 Thus, on June 17, 2014, when presenting their respective observations, the representatives only indicated that “some of the [presumed] victims in this case [were in the situation described], and even if at one time they had an identity document, they were unable to register their children owing to the situation of discrimination and arbitrariness that existed. One of Antonio Sensión’s daughters was in that situation.” Although they referred to “some” of the presumed victims, the representatives did not clarify who they were referring to. Furthermore, the reference to one of Antonio Sensión’s daughters is confusing; not only does it not indicate which daughter is referred to, but it is also unclear whether she is in the “situation” of “being unable” “to register her children,” or whether it is she herself who could not be “registered.” The indications provided by the representatives are insufficient to allow the Court to examine the matter. 104