Chapter 2 The Right to Nationality and Judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court | 83 registered foreigners to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs so that it can issue the corresponding notifications to the persons whom the births concern and to the respective consulates and/or embassies or diplomatic delegations. 6. To order the Central Electoral Board to: a) send the “List of foreigners irregularly registered into the Dominican Republic’s Civil Registry” to the Minister of State of the Interior and Police so that within the 90 days following notification of the judgment, it will prepare the National Plan to Regularize the Status of Aliens Living Illegally in the Country, and b) present a general report to the Executive Branch concerning that report, and include recommendations. 7. To urge the Executive Branch to implement the National Plan to Regularize the Status of Aliens Living Illegally in the Country.” 188 182. As for the effects of this judgment, it is important to note that because the Constitutional Court found that the amparo petition went well beyond the specific violation claimed by Juliana Deguis Pierre, the Court concluded that the effects of this judgment were far-reaching, reasoning that the judgment “protects the fundamental rights of a very large group of people living in situations that, from a factual and legal standpoint, are either the same or similar” to that of Mrs. Deguis Pierre. Here, the Constitutional Court maintained that: [i]n cases like the one before us, the amparo protection goes well beyond the violation of just one person’s right, as the petitioner is claiming. The tutela mechanism must have more expansive and binding authority allowing protection of the fundamental rights of other persons not party to the case but who find themselves in similar situations. 189 183. While judgment TC/0168/13 was supported by a majority of 11 justices, justices Isabel Bonilla Hernández and Katia Miguelina Jiménez Martínez dissented. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Isabel Bonilla Hernández argued that she took issue with the decision the majority had adopted, mainly on their point that foreigners who had lived in the country illegally for a number of years are foreigners “in transit” or “transients”. In her view, “this is a mistaken interpretation because persons in transit or transients are persons who spend only a short period of time in the country, which is not their final destination; this was not the case with the parents of the petitioner in this case.” She also pointed that “to equate the status of a foreigner in transit with that of an illegal resident alien is in violation of the principle of the non-retroactivity of the law, because until the [2010] amendment the Dominican Constitution was silent on the subject of illegal resident aliens where nationality was concerned 190..” 184. For her part, Justice Katia Miguelina Jiménez Martínez based the dissenting vote she casted in the judgment in question on the fact that Juliana Deguis’ parents could not 188 189 190 190 Dominican Republic, Constitutional Court, Judgment TC/0168/13. September 23, 2013. Dominican Republic, Constitutional Court, Judgment TC/0168/13. September 23, 2013 p. 97. Dominican Republic, Constitutional Court, Judgment TC/0168/13. September 23, 2013. Dominican Republic, Constitutional Court, Judgment TC/0168/13. September 23, 2013. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | IACHR