Chapter 2 The Right to Nationality and Judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court | 103 cannot be equated to a person in transit.242 The Commission also notes that neither the Constitution, nor the Civil Code, nor Law No. 659 of July 17, 1944, on Civil Status Procedures, makes a distinction between children whose parents are residing in the country legally and children whose parents are residing in the Dominican Republic illegally. Hence, to impose restrictions on the right to nationality that are not stipulated in the country’s positive law is a violation of the American Convention 241. The Commission considers that the interpretation that the Constitutional Court uses in judgment TC/0168/13 leads to an irrational and disproportionate outcome as it classifies as “foreigners in transit” Haitian immigrants who have lived in the Dominican Republic for thirty, forty or even fifty years and have, in the process, developed personal, family and social connections with the Dominican State. 243 Furthermore as explained in paragraphs 83 to 94 of the present report, it is important to point out that many Haitian migrants were brought into the country, either legally or illegally, as a result of measures promoted by Dominican officials and social and business sectors. During its visit, the Commission heard many testimonies from Haitian migrants who pointed out that they had entered the Dominican Republic in a regular fashion because they had been recruited to work as laborers to harvest sugar cane in the framework of binational agreements signed by the Dominican Republic and Haiti and the agreements signed by the State Sugar Council (Consejo Estatal del Azúcar—CEA) and the Dominican State with Haiti between 1972 and 1986. Other Haitian migrants indicated that they had entered the Dominican Republic as a result of recruitment by street recruiters (buscones), who were sponsored by the CEA and who, with the collaboration of migration authorities and the military, would irregularly pass Haitian migrant workers into Dominican territory so that they could world for the sugar industry. 244 When referring to how he had entered the Dominican Republic, one of the many Haitian migrant workers who rendered his testimony to the Commission stated that: They brought me here to work in the Boca Chica Sugar Plantation (Ingenio Boca Chica). I entered legally in the year [19]72. My file number is No. […]. Since 1972 I worked sowing sugar cane until that came to an end. My children were born and grew up here, but they did not let me register them because I am Haitian. Two [of my children] had to drop out of school because they don’t have their papers. 245 242. The effect of classifying as “foreigners in transit” immigrants who have lived on Dominican soil for a considerable period of time has been that the basic rights of their Dominican-born children, such as the right to nationality, the right to access to health and education, and others, have been violated. 246 The Commission also 242 243 244 245 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, par. 157. National Coalition for Haitian Rights. Beyond the Bateyes: Haitian Immigrants in the Dominican Republic, 1996, pp. 23 and 24. IACHR, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1991. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.81 Doc. 6 rev. 1, February 14, 1992, pp. 280 and 287. Testimony of a 62 year-old Haitian migrant worker. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | IACHR