THE RISK OF STATELESSNESS 76 YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J. 2017 [Vol. 19 recalled its own decision in The Girls Yean and Bosico, and suggested that the overly broad interpretation of “in transit” was not reasonable, and that the state needed to apply a more limited time frame in order to comply with its human rights obligations.203 In an important analytical turn, the InterAmerican Court then disengaged with its anti-discrimination analysis and focused on whether the state’s refusal to register the Jean family and to grant them nationality documents violated their right to nationality under the law of statelessness.204 The Court indicated that the Dominican Republic had recognized that it would be required under international law to grant Dominican nationality to the Jeans if they were stateless.205 It then examined the state’s argument that the Jeans were not stateless because they had the right to obtain Haitian nationality.206 In its discussion, the Court emphasized that the mere claim by the Dominican Republic that the Jeans could acquire Haitian nationality under the Haitian Constitution jus sanguinis was insufficient to demonstrate that they were not stateless. According to the Court, this claim was insufficient because “the State has not proved that the presumed victims who never obtained Dominican nationality are, in fact, able to obtain Haitian nationality.”207 Notably, the Court considered the state to have the burden of proving that the Jeans would be able to exercise any right to nationality in Haiti. The Inter-American Court never specifically explained its decision to place this burden on the Dominican Republic, but the Court did provide some clues in the framing of its analysis. First, the Court stated at the outset that it would be analyzing the “omission” of the Dominican Republic in declining to document the Jeans.208 While the Court did not cite any specific authority to support the idea that the state should bear the burden in justifying such an omission, this framing provides some insight. Second, the Court introduced the notion that a state has the obligation to be sure that a child born in its territory can acquire another nationality, and that the state must consider de facto barriers to acquiring the other nationality.209 Together, the omission by the state to issue documentation, combined with its obligation to confirm that the Jeans had acquired another nationality, presumably justified placing the burden on the state to demonstrate that the Jeans were not stateless. In support of the position that the state had not met its burden, the Court referred to “certain well-known public information” about the 203. Id. ¶ 294. 204. See ¶¶ 295-301; see also ¶¶ 302-25 (finding separately that the Dominican Republic had discriminatorily deprived the Jeans of their right to nationality with the succession of laws, policies, and judicial rulings, under Article 2 of the American Convention, and left them without Dominican nationality, in violation of Article 20, without making explicit reference to the law of statelessness.). 205. Id. ¶ 296. 206. Id. ¶ 297. 207. Id. 208. Id. ¶ 278. 209. Id. ¶ 261. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3111529