Chapter 2 The Right to Nationality and Judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court | 69 141. Another important provision of the Vienna Convention is its Article 27, which provides that “[a] party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” Hence, the validity of the instrument whereby a State accepts the jurisdiction of the Court is subject to observance of the mechanism that the Convention establishes for the purpose. To invoke provisions of domestic law as justification for failure to perform international agreements is a violation of the principle of good faith, especially when this is done in the case of human rights treaties, which recognize and protect the rights of all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the States and establish organs and complementary mechanisms of protection to deal with violations of those rights. 142. The Commission also recognizes that the principle of forum prorogatum is both valid for and applicable to the instant case. Developed at length by the International Court of Justice, 149 the principle provides that in cases where States spontaneously engage in procedural acts that they would only perform if they recognized a court’s jurisdiction, it shall be understood that by so doing these States have validly accepted that court’s jurisdiction. 150 The Dominican State has appeared before the Inter-American Court in provisional measures and contentious cases brought against it. Therefore, in application of the principle of forum prorogatum, the Commission is reaffirming the validity of the Inter-American Court’s jurisdiction. 143. Given the foregoing, the Commission stated its rejection of judgment TC/0256/14 of the Constitutional Court as it has no basis in the norms and principles of international law and is therefore without present and future legal effects in the international realm. 151 The Commission is of the view that court rulings such as Constitutional Court judgment TC/0256/14 undermine the added protection that international organs for the protection of human rights afford to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Dominican State and also create legal uncertainty, institutional instability, and mistrust on the part of the international community. 152 144. The Commission observes that in November 2014, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andrés Navarro announced that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would, at the end of the month, present President Danilo Medina with the possible positions that the country could take with respect to the Inter-American System as a consequence of judgment TC/0256/14 153.. Nevertheless, as of the date of approval of this report, the 149 150 151 152 153 International Court of Justice, Corfu Channel Case (Great Britain vs. People’s Republic of Albania). Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 25, 1948. International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda). Judgment of February 3, 2006. IACHR, IACHR Condemns Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic. November 6, 2014. On the subject of Constitutional Court judgment TC/0256/14, the Uruguayan State observed the following: “This decision could have legal consequences that would weaken the Dominican Republic’s commitment to the Inter-American Human Rights System by rendering the instruments of the system ineffective in that country.” See, Eastern Republic of Uruguay, Press release (in Spanish). Montevideo, November 11, 2014. In that regard, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its Concluding Observations to the Dominican Republic of 2015, voiced its concern that the Dominican Republic had officially rejected the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the 2014 Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. See: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | IACHR