the existence in the country of “institutional discrimination” against “Haitians who seek to obtain Dominican nationality,” because this is not revealed by either the law or practice. 248. In addition, it recalled that, at the time of the presumed facts of the case, the acquisition of Dominican nationality had different elements 283 and indicated that the exceptions to the acquisition of Dominican nationality based on ius soli established in the Constitution were reasonable because, in keeping with the Court’s case law, they were established by law, formally and materially, they sought a legitimate purpose, and they complied with the requirements of suitability, necessity and proportionality. The State also cited the principle that “irregularity does not give rise to a right,” indicating that “[a]nyone who violates the established legal parameters to enter the country as an immigrant, lacks legitimacy […] to require this same institutional system to grant nationality,” so that the children born of mothers who entered the country irregularly would not have the right to Dominican nationality. 249. In addition, in relation to the presumed violation of the right to a name, the State indicated that, in the case of the presumed “foreign victims,” in principle, it was not for the Dominican Republic to guarantee them the right to a name. 250. The State also “consider[ed] that [judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court of September 23, 2013] should be rejected as supervening evidence, because its content has no impact on the factual framework of this case,” and “additionally,” provided the “official position” with regard to that judgment. Thus, it indicated that, according to the text of article 184 the Constitution, decisions of the Constitutional Court are “binding for all the public powers and all the organs of the State.” In this regard, it indicated that “[t]he Constitutional Court has established […] a series of procedures […] that will allow the persons concerned to regularize their status,” and that “in order to execute the procedures [ordered by the Constitutional Court, the State] has implemented different measures.” It clarified, however, that the contents of this judgment “do not affect all the children of immigrants who are born in the country. Those with at least one parent who is a legal resident are and will continue to be Dominican nationals.” 251. In addition, on June 9, 2014, the State advised the Court, as “supervening facts,” of “Decree No. 327-13, of November 29, 2013, creating the National Plan to regularize aliens in an irregular migratory situation in the Dominican Republic,” and “Law No. 169-14, of May 23, 2014, which establishes a special regime for those born on national territory who are registered irregularly in the Dominican civil registry and with regard to naturalization” (supra paras. 13, 126 and 180). C) Considerations of the Court 283 The elements mentioned by the State were as follows: “(a) The State applies the hybrid system for obtaining nationality: ius soli and ius sanguinis; (b) The ius soli system for the acquisition of nationality was not automatic, but includes two important exceptions: (1) birth as a member of a family that was part of a diplomatic or consular mission, and (2) birth as a member of a family in transit in the country; (c) the addition of a third exception to the acquisition of nationality in the 2010 Constitution was aimed at clarifying the legal consequences established since the 1934 constitutional reform in relation to those born on national territory whose parents were in transit in the country. Therefore, this rule has been applicable from 1934 to date; (d) as indicated by the decision of the Dominican judicial authority, in functions as a Constitutional Court, the status of a transient person presupposes a prior State authorization to enter the country and to remain there for a certain time. Consequently, and following the same jurisprudential criteria, if nationality based on ius soli is not granted to the children of those in transit who have an official authorization to remain in the country, even though only temporally, pursuant to the said constitutional interpretation, still less can Dominican nationality based on ius soli be granted to the children of a foreign mother in an irregular situation in the country, and (e) the constitutional rule is race-blind; in other words, it is not the result of considerations of a racial, ethnic, cultural or any other category prohibited by the Constitution of the Republic or the American Convention” (italics in the original text). 82