196 Access to Redress for Stateless Persons Under International Law access to redress. Due to their lack of recognition by the state as its nationals, stateless persons frequently lack identification documents. This lack of documentation makes it difficult to ascertain if the individual in question is in fact who he/she claims to be. In relation to this, one of the legal challenges the Dominican Republic posed during proceedings was related to the inability to ascertain claims to “victimhood” by some of the claimants. The state alleged that the individuals in question had not suffered a violation of the right to nationality (article 20) as they could not prove they were being deprived of Dominican nationality because they could not prove they were Dominican by birth. The Dominican Republic claimed that it was not possible to determine the country of birth of some of the applicants, due to their lack of a birth certificate.160 This challenge posed by the state could have potentially disqualified stateless individuals as claimants in the case, since it would cast into doubt their right to Dominican nationality by virtue of jus soli, a right they claimed was being violated.161 This posed a challenge to their ability to access redress because had they not been recognized as legitimate claimants in the case, they would not be able to benefit from any reparatory measures issued by the IACtHR. However, the Court considered that this lack of evidence did ‘not prevent them from continuing to be presumed victims in this case’.162 In the same case, there were individuals who did possess identification documents, but the state argued that some of the documents presented by the applicants as evidence had ‘shortcomings that jeopardize the authenticity of the document’.163 However, the victims’ representatives stated that the IACtHR should consider the specific circumstances of the case since following the expulsions, the victims were placed in marginalized living conditions, which made it difficult for them to notarize the documents for submission.164 On this matter, the Court found in favour of the applicants. In Yean and Bosico, the victims (who were children at the time) did not face documentation challenges in accessing the Court. The IACtHR has referred to article 63 ACHR165—which grants it the power to rule on appropriate recommendations—as an embodiment of customary international law and a key principle regarding state responsibility.166 Reparations, as the IACtHR has established, must have a ‘causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective harm’.167 Under article 63 ACHR, the IACtHR168 enjoys broad169 remedial jurisdiction, having the power to order remedies other than monetary compensation.170 Most human rights violations can never be fully redressed, since human rights violations often leave deep scars in the victims. For this reason, the IACtHR considers that there are other measures to ‘ensure the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of Case of Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (IACtHR, 2014), para 87. 161 Article 20 ACHR enshrines the right to nationality. The provision contained in article 20 is the most comprehensive provision on the right to nationality among all human rights instruments that contain such a provision. 162 Case of Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (IACtHR, 2014), para 87. 163 Ibid, para 121. 164 Ibid, para 122. 165 Article 63: 1. If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied, and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 2. In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 166 Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v Honduras, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 1989), para 25; Case of Cantoral Benavides v Peru, Reparations (IACtHR, 2001), para 40; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v Guatemala, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 2001) Series C No 77, para 62. 167 Case of Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (IACtHR, 2014), para 445; see also Case of Ticona Estrada v Bolivia, Merits, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 2009), para 110. 168 It should be added that the IACommHR can also make recommendations regarding reparations, and often recommends financial compensation. When such recommendations are made, the state incurs a duty to compensate which cannot be limited by domestic law, since it becomes an international legal obligation. See D Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (2nd, Oxford University Press, 2005), at 212–213. 169 Interestingly, among the debates prior to the adoption of the ACHR, there was no evident debate on the subject, which can show that American states in general did not oppose giving the IACtHR broad remedial powers. See D Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (2nd, Oxford University Press, 2005), at 216. 170 D Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (2nd, Oxford University Press, 2005), at 216. 160