2 Yean and Violeta Bosico Cofi1 (hereinafter “the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico”, “the Yean and Bosico children”, “the children Dilcia and Violeta”, “the children” or “the alleged victims”), with regard to the facts that have occurred and the rights that have been violated since March 25, 1999, the date on which the Dominican Republic accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. 3. In its application, the Commission alleged that the State, through its Registry Office authorities, had refused to issue birth certificates for the Yean and Bosico children, even though they were born within the State’s territory and that the Constitution of the Dominican Republic (hereinafter “the Constitution”) establishes the principle of ius soli to determine those who have a right to Dominican citizenship. The Commission indicated that the State obliged the alleged victims to endure a situation of continued illegality and social vulnerability, violations that are even more serious in the case of children, since the Dominican Republic denied the Yean and Bosico children their right to Dominican nationality and let them remain stateless persons until September 25, 2001. According to the Commission, the child Violeta Bosico was unable to attend school for one year owing to the lack of an identity document. The Commission also alleges that the absence of a mechanism or procedure for an individual to appeal a decision of the Registry Office before a judge of first instance, and also the discriminatory acts of the Registry Office officials, who did not allow the alleged victims to obtain their birth certificate, violate specific rights embodied in the Convention. The Commission requested the Court to order the State to grant reparations that make full amends for the alleged violations of the children’s rights. It also requested that the State adopt the legislative and other measures necessary to ensure respect for the rights embodied in the Convention and establish guidelines that contain reasonable requirements for the late registration of births and do not impose excessive or discriminatory obligations, so as to facilitate the registration of Dominican-Haitian children. Lastly, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to pay the reasonable costs and expenses arising from processing the case in the domestic jurisdiction and before the organs of the InterAmerican System. II COMPETENCE 4. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs in this case, in the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, because the Dominican Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention since April 19, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 25, 1999 (infra paras. 100 to 108 and 132). III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. On October 28, 1998, the Yean and Bosico children, through Genaro Rincón Miesse2 and Solain Pierre,3 General Coordinator of the Movimiento de Mujeres 1 On March 25, 1999, the date on which the State accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, Dilcia Yean was 2 years old and Violeta Bosico was 14 years old. 2 This Court notes that, according to his passport, Genaro appears with the last names “Rincón Miesse”; however, in various documents submitted by the parties, he appears with the last names “Rincón Martínez”; the Court therefore considers it is the same person. For the effects of this judgment, the name “Genaro Rincón Miesse” will be used, as it appears in his passport.

Select target paragraph3