Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/03 The first government agency to respond was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In a supportive opinion, it cited international human rights standards, Supreme Court decisions on nationality claims, and a 2005 Inter-American Court judgment in the Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Its brief concluded: “Nationality is an essential human right and an attribute of the human personality, and no one can be arbitrarily deprived of it. It is therefore our opinion that the Civil Registry and other concerned agencies should bring their interpretation of the statutes and their practices with regard to Chilean-born children of transient foreigners into line with the human rights instruments Chile has signed and the jurisprudence of both the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of Chile”.27 On November 24, the Civil Registry Director replied that “[C]onsidering that all claimants on whose behalf the nationality claim was filed have expressed their wish to be recognised as Chilean nationals, the Civil Registry sees no need to issue individual service orders for each”, and ordered instead that all 167 birth records be amended accordingly forthwith.28 While a key goal had been accomplished, the request to extend the effects of the decision to all affected was not addressed. As such, once claimant records were amended, the plaintiffs filed an additional claim arguing that denial of nationality and the resulting infringement of the best interest of children had been systematic and widespread for decades, giving rise to a state obligation to make reparations by means of a comprehensive remedy that accounted for the plight of all affected. As the issue had not been resolved by previous court decisions or in cases settled through administrative channels, a collective solution was imperative. The Supreme Court was specifically asked to act as conciliator and set up a forum for dialogue and collaboration among the concerned parties with a view to determining a method for the State to fulfil this request. The Court was further asked to help monitor execution and implementation of any resulting arrangements. With the assent of the full court, Chief Justice Sergio Muñoz summoned the parties to a mediation hearing on December 16, 2015. At the hearing it was determined that the 167 claimants had indeed had the CTF annotation struck from the record and been recognised as Chilean nationals. This made the decision final and had a preclusion effect on the issues brought up in the claim.29 At this point the Court noted that it had not addressed the additional request advanced in the claim, as it felt it was not competent to rule on third parties. In addition, a ruling applying to unidentified individuals might be deemed to constitute ultra petita and run counter to procedural consistency principles. At the hearing, State representatives stated their willingness to identify all cases and amend their records, and agreed to provide a list of all affected individuals at a new hearing. On January 16, 2016 the Civil Registry Director reported that the total number of individuals that were still registered as CTF stood at 2,503, with reasonably current home addresses available for only 724. On this last point, he indicated that the Civil Registry would conduct a media and online campaign to bring the procedure for requesting citizenship to the attention of affected persons. This second hearing brought the conciliation process to a halt. 6. Moving forward: the implementation of #Chilereconoce”30 27 Public Memorandum 013160, Legal Affairs Directorate, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in reference to Supreme Court Case No. 24089/2015 (nationality claim). 28 Civil Registry, Service Order No. 1: “Eliminación de anotación de hijo de extranjeros transeúntes consignada en una partida de nacimiento”, in reference to Supreme Court Case No. 24089/2015 (nationality claim). 29 Minutes of conciliation hearing chaired by Chief Justice Sergio Muñoz on December 16, 2015. 30 “Chile reckons” 7