Chapter 2 The Right to Nationality and Judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court | 95 of persons born to parents who, by the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, came to be classified as “foreigners in transit.” In that judgment the Constitutional Court ordered a general review dating back to 1929, whose purpose would be to detect “foreigners irregularly registered” in the Civil Registry, 223 persons previously recognized as Dominican nationals. Here the Commission would echo the InterAmerican Court’s finding with regard to the same judgment, where it wrote that: Regarding judgment TC/0168/13, it should be recalled that, in its case law, the Inter-American Court has established that it is aware that the domestic authorities are subject to the rule of law and, therefore, are obliged to apply the laws that are in force. 224 However, when a State is a party to an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its organs, including its judges, are also subject to that treaty, which obliges them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not impaired by the application of norms that are contrary to its object and purpose. The judges and organs involved in the administration of justice at all levels are obliged to exercise ex officio a “control of conventionality” between domestic laws and the American Convention; evidently within the framework of their respective jurisdictions and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, they must take into account not only the treaty, but also its interpretation by the Inter-American Court, ultimate interpreter of the American Convention. 225 217. Civil society organizations have told the Commission that judgment TC/0168/13, Law No. 169-14, regulated by Decree No. 250-14, and other laws and decisions that the Dominican authorities adopted, like Immigration Law No. 285-04, 2007 Resolution 02 of the Central Electoral Board, 2007 Circular No. 17 of the Central Electoral Board’s Administrative Chamber, and 2007 Resolution No. 12 of the Board’s Plenary violate Article 2 of the American Convention with respect to the State’s duty to adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to give effect to rights recognized in the American Convention, like the rights to nationality, juridical personality, name, equality without discrimination, and others. 218. On this question, the Dominican authorities underscored the fact that judgment TC/0168/13 had to be observed, since it is a ruling of the Constitutional Court binding upon the branches of government and all Dominican State agencies, and for the sake of preserving the rule of law and respecting the separation of powers. 223 224 225 Dominican Republic, Constitutional Court, Judgment TC/0168/13. September 23, 2013, operative paragraph five. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 273, footnote 76. See, I/A Court H.R., Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, par. 311, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of Liakat Alibux v. Suriname, par. 87. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid Arellano et al v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 124, and Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 273, footnote page 76. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | IACHR