Mr Bronstein of his Peruvian nationality (and later removing critical journalists from Channel 2) the State of Peru had restricted freedom of expression by indirect methods. The Court further found a violation of Article 21 (right to private property, to include participation in share capital). Citing a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court established that it ‘should not restrict itself to evaluating whether a formal dispossession or expropriation took place, but should look beyond mere appearances and establish the real situation behind the situation that was denounced’, namely, all the consequences of the act of deprivation of nationality.116 Finally, the Court found the State of Peru to have failed in its general obligation to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the ACHR and its duty to organize the public authorities in order to ensure to all persons subject to its jurisdiction enjoy the free and full exercise of human rights. Peru’s international responsibility was therefore engaged under international human rights law.117 As a result, Mr Bronstein’s nationality was restored, and repairs and payment of compensation granted. Another landmark case is Yean and Bosico Children v Dominican Republic,118 in which the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights found that the Dominican Republic had applied the laws relating to nationality and birth registration in a discriminatory manner, leaving the two girls of Haitian descent, stateless and therefore in a situation of extreme vulnerability. The Court also found the Dominican Republic to have violated their right to nationality, the right to juridical personality and to a name, and the right to equal protection, all in relation to the rights of the child. 119 More specifically, the Court held that by imposing certain requirements, not needed in the case of children under the age of 13 in order to obtain nationality, the State acted arbitrarily and in a way that conflicted with the primary interest of the child; such acts therefore constituted discriminatory treatment of the two girls (10 months old and 12 years old, respectively).120 The Court further held that ‘the vulnerability arising from statelessness affected the free development of their personalities, since it impeded access to their rights and to the special protection to which they are entitled’. 121 For the Court, the discriminatory treatment suffered by the two girls must be situated within the broader context of the vulnerable situation of the Haitian population and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic, which has been going on for decades.122 Hence, Bronstein v Peru, para.124. Ibid, para.168. 118 Case of the Yean and Bosico Children v. The Dominican Republic, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR), 8 September 2005, para.137 - available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/44e497d94.html [accessed 10 June 2013] 119 To read on the background of this case, see Office of the UNHCR, The State of the World’s Refugees 2012 – In search of solidarity, OUP 2012, pp.104-5. 120 Case of the Yean and Bosico Children v. The Dominican Republic, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR), 8 September 2005, para.166 - available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/44e497d94.html [accessed 10 June 2013]. 121 Yean and Bosico Children, para.167. 122 Yean, ibid, para.168. The situation does not appear to have improved since this decision was made, judging by the latest judgment 168-13 of the Dominican Constitutional Court denationalizing Dominican children of undocumented immigrants of Haitian origin. 116 117 20