94 | Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic the parameters established by the binding standards of international law, which the States themselves, in exercise of their sovereignty, have undertaken to observe. Thus, international human rights law has evolved such that in today’s world, States must, when regulating the conferral of nationality, take the following into account: a) their obligation to prevent, avoid and reduce statelessness, and b) their duty to provide individuals with equal and effective protection of the law, without discrimination. 220 214. Another important expression of the significance that the States attach to the right to nationality and the prevention of statelessness are the recommendations that they have made to the Dominican Republic in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) conducted through the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Inter-American Commission observes that on February 5, 2014, just four months after judgment TC/0168/13 was handed down, and as part of the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review of the Dominican Republic, 48 States had recommendations for the Dominican Republic; 20 of those States expressed concern and made specific recommendations pertaining to protection of the right to nationality and prevention of statelessness. Many recommendations concerned the need to restore the right to nationality to persons born on Dominican territory to foreigners, particularly Haitians, and to implement the recommendations that the Inter-American Commission had made in its preliminary observations at the end of its on-site visit in 2013. 221 215. The Commission therefore believes that the States must make certain that when exercising their discretionary authorities in matters of nationality, they do so in a manner that comports with their international human rights obligations. 222 While the rules pertaining to nationality are, in principle, internal affairs that are up to the States to decide, with the evolution that international law has undergone since the last century, these matters are also of interest to the international community as a whole, so much so that various laws have been approved establishing international obligations incumbent upon States in this regard. At the present time, it is completely anachronistic and contrary to international law to argue any position that maintains that a given State has absolute discretion over all matters related to nationality, or even the kind of discretionary authority that would allow it to disregard obligations that it has undertaken internationally, especially its obligations in the areas of human rights and the prevention of statelessness. 216. The Commission is of the view that the effects of judgment TC/0168/13 are general in scope, in that they are intended to retroactively redefine who qualifies for Dominican nationality on the basis of the principle of jus soli, specifically in the case 220 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 40. The recommendations made to the Dominican Republic concerning the right to nationality and prevention of statelessness came from the following States: 1) Argentina, 2) Australia, 3) Belgium, 4) Brazil, 5) Canada, 6) Chile, 7) France, 8) Germany, 9) Ireland, 10) Italy, 11) Mexico, 12) Nicaragua, 13) Norway, 14) Portugal, 15) Slovenia, 16) Spain, 17) Switzerland, 18) Trinidad and Tobago, 19) United States, and 20) Uruguay. See, UN, Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Dominican Republic. 26th Session, April 4, 2014. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1997, Vol. II, Part One, p. 22. 221 222 Organization of American States | OAS