50 236. The Commission believes that recognition of a person’s standing before the law has a factual aspect, which are the particulars that comprise a person’s civil status, such as his name, age, place of birth, parentage, nationality and the like; it also has a legal or juridical aspect, which are the documents that enable one to prove one’s name, age, and so forth. In fact, access to basic services like housing, education, access to justice and, in general, the exercise and enjoyment of one’s civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights require that persons be able to prove their identity and their legal personality. Renting or purchasing a home, finding a job, or attending school become problematic without the documentation needed to prove one’s identity; and without such documents, it would be very difficult indeed to file a complaint with the police, the government or the courts, or to go to a consulate or embassy for some service. 237. Based on the context, the statements made by the victims and the documentation supplied by the State itself, the Commission has taken as fact that Benito Tide Méndez, William Medina Ferreras, Wilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Ana Lidia Sensión, Reyita Antonia Sensión, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean and Nathalie Jean were Dominican nationals and had the necessary documentation to so certify. However, during their arbitrary arrest and expulsion, the victims never had an opportunity to present that documentation; in those cases where the documentation was presented, it was destroyed by the Dominican officials. The Commission observes that the destruction of the victims’ identification documents deprived them of the means to prove their physical existence and legal personality. This, combined with the fact that they were expelled to a country with which they had no link whatever, posed additional problems obstructing their ability to apply for new documents to prove their identity. Furthermore, Benito Tide Méndez encountered numerous obstacles and added requirements in his efforts to obtain new documents and was ultimately denied those documents on the grounds that he was under investigation. 238. On the other hand, the Dominican authorities’ refusal to register Jeanty Fils-Aime, Nene Fils-Aime, Fiane Fils-Aime, Antonio Fils-Aime, Marilobi Fils-Aime, Endry Fils-Aime, Andren Fils-Aime, Juan Fils-Aime, Berson Gelin and Víctor Jean shut them out of the State’s justice system and institutions by refusing to even recognize their very existence as subjects of law. Their right to be recognized as 219 persons before the law was thus violated. 239. The Commission considers that these practices not only complicate the State’s control of immigration, but also violate domestic laws that allow detention to be extended when a person does not have on his person his passport or other document needed to travel. These practices leave the victims in a position of extreme vulnerability and jeopardy, as they are being placed in a position in which they have no way to prove their physical or legal existence; these practices also render the victims unable to exercise their rights and expose them to abuse by authorities of the State and private persons. 240. In the instant case, the State’s failure to register children born in Dominican territory and its destruction or refusal to return the victims’ legal papers had the effect of denying Benito Tide Méndez, William Medina Ferreras, Wilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Jeanty Fils-Aime, Nene Fils-Aime, Diane Fils-Aime, Antonio Fils-Aime, Marilobi Fils-Aime, Endry Fils-Aime, Juan Fils-Aime, Andren Fils-Aime, Berson Gelin, Ana Lidia Sensión, Reyita Antonia Sensión, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Víctor Jean, Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean and Nathalie Jean their existence in a world of laws. Thus, they were not persons, but instead reduced to mere objects in the eyes of the law. These practices placed the victims in a situation of extreme peril as their effect was to deny the victims their enjoyment and exercise of their rights and the legal standing required in order to turn to the judicial system for protection. 241. As previously observed, States are authorized to regulate the scope and application of rights, including the right to nationality. Nevertheless, the restrictions or requirements established to obtain nationality must be governed by strict principles such as necessity and proportionality; in order 219 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 180.