104 | Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic concludes that those persons who were arbitrarily deprived of their nationality and left stateless as a result, are now in danger of being arbitrarily expelled from the country of which they were nationals if they are unable to prove their Dominican nationality. 243. The Commission also believes that the consequences of the loss or deprivation of nationality must be carefully weighed, taking into consideration the seriousness of the conduct or crime that is the reason that measure is being considered. 247 As with any decision that deprives an individual of nationality, States have an obligation to examine carefully and on a case-by-case basis the proportionality of the measure, especially when it results in statelessness. In those cases in which nationality was acquired on the basis of fraudulent or falsified information or a misrepresentation of the facts, the State must consider the nature or gravity of the conduct taking into account the consequences that withdrawal of nationality would have. 248 Here, other factors have to be considered, such as the person’s connection to the State, particularly the time elapsed between the acquisition of nationality and the perpetration of the fraud, as well as any family and social ties the person has developed. 244. The Commission observes that in judgment TC/0168/13, the Constitutional Court wrote that Article 11(1) of the 1966 Constitution and, in general, Dominican constitutional law since 1929, allowed for an exception to the acquisition of Dominican nationality based on the principle of jus soli, if the parents of the person born on Dominican soil were foreigners living irregularly in the country. 249 Based on that interpretation, in the fifth operative paragraph of the judgment, the Constitutional Court ordered the Central Electoral Board to take the following measures: (i) to conduct, within one year of the notification of this judgment (a period that can be extended for up to one additional year), a careful audit of the records of births entered into the Dominican Republic’s Civil Registry between 1929 and the present, in order to then identify and assemble a documentary and/or digital list of all foreigners whose names appear in the birth records of the Dominican Republic’s Civil Registry; (ii) on a second list, enter the names of foreigners irregularly registered because they did not meet the conditions required under the Constitution of the Republic for conferral of Dominican nationality on the basis of jus soli, which shall be called the “List of foreigners 247 248 249 See, UN, Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality. December 19, 2013. See UN, Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality. December 19, 2013, para. 4. As to Dominican constitutional law, the representatives pointed out that the criterion used to interpret the expression “in transit” that appears in Article 11 of the 1994 Constitution, which in their view establishes an unjustified difference in treatment, was incorporated verbatim into the 2010 Constitution, which precludes the right to nationality in the case of children of those “residing in Dominican territory illegally” (supra paragraph 238). Despite this fact, they have not asserted that the Constitution has been applied or has in any way affected the alleged victims’ enjoyment of their rights, nor have they alleged any violation of Article 2 of the American Convention or other provisions thereof based on the text of the 2010 Constitution. Nor do the facts of the case demonstrate a direct application of the 2010 Constitution in the case of the alleged victims or that it has had any direct impact on their situation. Organization of American States | OAS