owing to the “incorrect application of article 11 of the Dominican Constitution [of 1994]”; specifically the application of the exception established in article 11(1) which excluded from the principle of acquisition of nationality based on ius soli the children of aliens “in transit.” They pointed out that the Dominican authorities had classified the Haitians who were in Dominican territory, without considering the time that they had spent in this country, as aliens “in transit” and, consequently, their children did not have the right to acquire Dominican nationality even though they had been born in this territory. The representatives indicated that “[t]his was precisely the criterion that was applied to the victims in this case, which has meant that, at the present time, they lack identity and nationality documents.” They also alleged a discriminatory application of the law, indicating that the application of article 11 of the Constitution, in the sense of considering that all Haitians were “in transit,” created a differential treatment that was based solely on the race or ethnic origin of those affected and, therefore, lacked any justification. They noted that this definition had been incorporated textually into the new 2010 Constitution, which added a third exception excluding the children of those persons “who are residing illegally in Dominican territory” from the right to nationality under ius soli. 239. They also explained that, even though Haiti accepts ius sanguinis, “obstacles exist […] de jure and de facto to acquire the nationality of that country” for the presumed victims. They indicated that article 11 of the Haitian Constitution, according to the translation into Spanish made by the representatives, indicates that “[a]nyone born of a Haitian father or mother, who is also Haitian by birth and has never renounced their nationality, shall have the right to Haitian nationality as of birth.” The representatives affirmed that, nevertheless, “in the case of the families [they] represent where the nationality of their children born in the Dominican Republic has been questioned, at least one of the parents is Dominican. This gives rise to the presumption that article 11 of the Haitian Constitution is not directly applicable to them.” They added that “the 1984 law on access to Haitian nationality […] established [that] all those born abroad of Haitian mother and father will be Haitians of origin”; that article 7 of that law established (in the words of the representatives) that “children born abroad of a foreign father and a Haitian mother will have the foreign nationality until they achieve their majority, at which time they will have the right to acquire Haitian nationality,” and that article 8 of this law indicates, according to the non-textual indication of the representatives, that “the person who is of age and who wishes to acquire Haitian nationality must live in that country and apply to the competent court of his or her place of residence.” 240. They stressed that the situation of statelessness in which the said victims were kept and the failure to recognize their juridical personality and their name, denatured and denied the external or social projection of their persona and prevented them from having access to other rights. 241. The representatives also explained that their argument concerning the violation of Article 2 of the Convention, with regard to the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, was in relation to the fact that “the violation of the right to nationality […] results […] from the adoption and application of a series of State norms and practices.” Although they referred to “the implementation […] at different times of the norms and practices of Dominican domestic law,” they only expressed their disagreement with the 2004 Immigration Act, Resolution 02-07 of the Central Electoral Board that created and brought into effect the Birth Register for the children of a foreign mother in the Dominican Republic, 278 “Circular No. 017 […] of March 29, 2007, of the Administrative Chamber of 278 The representatives indicated that, owing to that Resolution, “[i]n practice, the State […] by means of the [respective] registration, denies Dominican nationality to the child, seeking to grant it the nationality of another country by registering it in [the] ‘aliens’ register.’” 79