agents responsible for immigration and judicial proceedings, so that events such as those of this case are not repeated. To this end, the Court finds that the State must implement, within a reasonable time, continuous and permanent training programs on topics that concern this population in order to ensure: (a) that racial profiling never constitutes a reason for detention or expulsion; (b) strict observance of the guarantees of due process during any proceedings related to the expulsion or deportation of aliens; (c) that Dominican nationals are never, in any circumstance, expelled, and (d) that collective expulsions of aliens are never executed. B.3.2. Adoption of domestic legal measures 466. The Commission considered that the State should “adopt measures […] including a review of domestic legislation on registration and granting of nationality to persons of Haitian descent born in Dominican territory, and the repeal of those provisions that directly or indirectly have a discriminatory impact based on race or national origin, taking into account the principle of ius soli established by the State, the State obligation to prevent statelessness, and the applicable international human rights law standards.” 467. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to adapt its domestic laws and practices concerning registration and the granting of nationality to international human rights law and, more specifically, to adopt administrative and legislative measures to eliminate the distinction established in Dominican law that prevents the children of aliens born in the Dominican Republic from acquiring this nationality. 468. The Court has established that judgment TC/0168/13 and articles 6, 8 and 11 of Law No. 169-14 violate the American Convention (supra para. 325). Consequently, the Dominican Republic must, within a reasonable time, take the necessary measures to avoid these laws continuing to produce legal effects. 469. The Court has established that, in the Dominican Republic, considering the irregular migratory status of parents who are aliens as grounds for an exception to the acquisition of nationality based on ius soli is discriminatory and, therefore, violates Article 24 of the Convention, and “has found no reason […] to differ from its finding in its judgment in the Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, that an individual’s immigration status is not transmitted to his or her children” (supra paras. 318). In addition, the Court has indicated that the application of this criterion deprives an individual of legal certainty in the enjoyment of the right to nationality (supra paras. 298 and 314), which violates Articles 3, 18 and 20 of the Convention, and owing to these violations taken as a whole, the right to identity (supra paras. 301 and 325). Therefore, in keeping with the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention, the State must adopt, within a reasonable time, the necessary measures to annul any type of norm, whether administrative, regulatory, legal or constitutional, as well as any practice, decision or interpretation that establishes or has the effect that the irregular status of parents who are aliens constitutes grounds for denying Dominican nationality to those born on the territory of the Dominican Republic, because such norms, practices, decisions or interpretations are contrary to the American Convention. 470. In addition to the foregoing, in order to avoid a repetition of facts such as those of this case, the Court finds it pertinent to establish that the State must adopt, within a reasonable time, the legislative and even, if necessary, constitutional, administrative or any other type of measures required to regulate a simple and accessible procedure to register births, to ensure that all those born on its territory may be registered immediately 146