51 words, the restrictions must be calculated to serve a compelling public interest and must be proportional to the interest that necessitates them. These restrictions must also be prescribed by law, are not to be discriminatory and must serve some legitimate end. They cannot result in an arbitrary deprivation of 220 nationality. 242. The Commission has taken the following as fact: obstacles make it difficult to register children born in the Dominican Republic of Haitian descent; there are problems associated with the interpretation of the clause on aliens “in transit”; the irregular immigration status of parents is passed on to children born on Dominican soil. Registry is necessary to ensure one’s recognition as a person before 221 the law and one’s enjoyment of the fundamental rights recognized in the Convention. The Commission has previously observed that “[b]irth registration is a fundamental right. It not only gives a child a recognized legal existence and identity, it is the sign that the child ‘belongs’ to a family, a community and a nation. It shows that a child has a place, and a stake in all three. It opens the door to other rights, such as access to health and education services, offers protection against discrimination and neglect, determines a child’s treatment in the justice system, and lasts a lifetime - guaranteeing the individual’s 222 right to take their [sic] place in the social and political life of their [sic] country.” 243. The Commission recalls the Court’s finding to the effect that: a) a person’s immigration status cannot be a condition for the State to grant nationality, because immigration status can never constitute a justification for depriving a person of the right to nationality or the enjoyment and exercise of his rights; b) a person’s immigration status is not transmitted to the children, and c) the fact that a person was born on the territory of a State is the only fact that needs to be proved for the acquisition of nationality, in the case of those persons who would not have the right to another nationality if they did not acquire that of the 223 State where they were born. 244. Furthermore, with respect to the laws in force in the Dominican Republic, the Court observed that irrespective of the classification used, the time period that the State establishes to qualify a person as being “in transit” must be reasonable and must reflect the fact that an alien who develops ties 224 in a State cannot be equated with a transient person or person in transit. 245. The Commission observes that from the established context and the laws and practices of the Dominican Republic at the time of the events, Haitian immigrants had to contend with a number of obstacles preventing them from legalizing their status in the country and registering their children born on Dominican soil. The Commission considers that despite the fact that the State follows the principle of jus soli, the impediments to conferring nationality upon persons born on Dominican soil constitute an arbitrary deprivation of nationality which fosters the detention and possible deportation of Dominican nationals – which is expressly prohibited under Article 22(5) of the American Convention- and exposes the victims to extreme peril and vulnerability. 246. The Commission notes that the State has not supplied any information that denies the practice of destroying documents or the obstacles to registering children of Haitian descent born in Dominican territory. The Commission also observes that the State has not supplied information regarding the criteria that the authorities use to detain persons taken into custody during roundups or sweeps or 220 IACHR, Application filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico Cofi v. Dominican Republic, June 11, 2003, paragraph 51. 221 UN, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 44 of the Convention. Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Nicaragua. CRC/C/15/Add.36 (Ninth Session, 1995), paragraph 16. 222 IACHR, Application filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico Cofi v. Dominican Republic, July 11, 2003, paragraph 179. See, also, IACHR, Report on the situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.104, Doc 49, rev. 1, October 7, 1999, paragraphs 363 and 364. 223 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, paragraph 156. 224 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, paragraph 157.