177. On August 27, 2004, General Migration Law No. 285-04 163 was published, repealing Immigration Law No. 95 of 1939. Also, the Central Electoral Board issued Circular No. 017 on March 29, 2007, 164 and, on December 10, 2007, adopted Resolution 12-2007. 165 These norms will be examined below (infra paras. 326 to 329). 178. On January 26, 2010, the amendment to the Constitution of the Dominican Republic was published. 166 It included a third exception to the acquisition of Dominican nationality by ius soli in its article 18(3), which stipulated that persons born on national territory of aliens “who are in transit or who are residing illegally in Dominican territory” will not be Dominican. 179. Judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court of September 23, 2013, 167 when ruling on the appeal filed by a woman born in the Dominican Republic in 1984 of Haitian parents against the refusal of the Central Electoral Board to issue her Dominican identity and voter registration cards, interpreted the exception contained in the 1966 Constitution (in force at the date of her birth, art. 11(1)), regarding children born in the country of foreign parents in transit. It considered that the appellant’s case corresponded to the constitutional exception to the principle of ius soli, because her parents were Haitian citizens who, at the time of her birth, did not possess identity cards, and must be considered as “temporary unskilled workers” (jornaleros), a group that Immigration Law No. 95 of 1939 included in the category of “non-immigrant aliens.” According to the Constitutional Court, the category of “aliens in transit” that had appeared in all the Dominican constitutions since 1929 corresponded to all four groups called “non-immigrant foreign workers.” 168 In this regard, the broader category of “aliens in transit” should not be confused with that of “transient aliens,” which is merely the second of the said four groups of persons who compose the category of “non-immigrant foreign workers” (“persons who cross the territory of the Republic towards another country”). In addition, of the four groups included in the concept of “aliens in transit” under article 11(1) of the 1966 Constitution, the Constitutional Court referred to the specific situation of aliens who remain in the country without a legal residence permit or those who have entered the country illegally: “[i]n this regard, such persons may not claim that their children born in the country have the right to obtain Dominican nationality under the said article 11(1) of the 1966 Constitution, because it is juridically inadmissible to found the inception of a right on a de facto illegal situation.” 169 In short, since it has not been proved that at least one of the parents was legally resident in the Dominican Republic at the time of the birth of their daughter or following this, in the Constitutional Court’s opinion, the appellant did not comply with the requirements established in the said article 11(1) of the 1966 163 General Migration Law No. 285-04 of August 15, 2004, published in Official Gazette No. 10291 of August 27, 2004 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex A18, fs. 3324 to 3364 and file of annexes to the 5-answering brief, fs. 5928 to 5969). In addition, Implementation Regulations No. 631-11 were issued, which are the regulations for the implementation of General Migration Law No. 285-04 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 24, fs. 3404 to 3475). 164 Circular No. 017 of March 29, 2007, issued by the Central Electoral Board (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex A20, fs. 160 and 161). 165 Resolution No. 12-2007 of December 10, 2007, issued by the Central Electoral Board (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex A21, fs. 3377 to 3381). 166 Constitution of the Dominican Republic of January 26, 2010, published in Official Gazette No. 10561 (file of annexes to the answering brief, fs. 5289 to 5389). 167 Judgment of the Constitutional Court TC/0168/13 of September 23, 2013 (file of preliminary objections, merits and reparations, fs. 2654 to 2800). Presented by the representatives as a “supervening fact” on October 2, 2013. 168 According to the text of article 3 of Immigration Law No. 95 of 1939. 169 The Constitutional Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 14, 2005. 59