question at that time.49 As such, those affected are stateless. Furthermore, the profound connections to the Dominican Republic of those persons affected impose a political and moral imperative on the State to facilitate their integration into their “own country”50 and Dominican society. 19. In response to national and international outcries that TC/0168/13 caused massive denationalization51, the State issued Law 169-1452 (“Ley 169-14”). Law 169-14 divided those persons affected by TC/0168/13 into two groups, known as Group A and Group B. People in Group A were born on Dominican territory between June 16, 1929 and April 18, 2007 and had their births recorded in the Civil Registry, while Group B corresponded to persons born during the same period whose births were never registered, even though they were also born in the Dominican Republic. 20. According to Law 169-14, the Central Electoral Board (“Junta Central Electoral” or “JCE”) would review and transcribe all civil registry records for those in Group A affected by TC/0168/13 as part of an internal audit in order to ensure that identity documents were not issued to people who had registered by providing fraudulent information. The Central Electoral Board would then either ratify existing registrations or transcribe these registrations for individuals deemed eligible.53 This process was criticized by national and international organizations for a lack of transparency as to what the review process entailed and what constituted fraud. This process was also criticized for leaving people in Group A in legal limbo while their identity documents were temporarily invalidated during the audit.54 21. For those in Group B whose births were never registered, these individuals could register during a limited time period in the Book of Foreigners (“el Libro de Extranjería”) and apply for naturalization two years after obtaining one the migratory statuses established in General Migration Law No. 28504, so long as they did not have an existing criminal record.55 The process of potential naturalization for Group B was condemned by national and international actors both in principle and in implementation, as it treated people born on Dominican territory – who had a right to nationality as foreigners and arbitrarily deprived them of a nationality without an effective or guaranteed remedy.56 22. One source of international condemnation for Law 169-14 came from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which in the 2014 case Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, 49 UNHCR. Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons: Under the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. Geneva, 2014. http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/statelessness/53b698ab9/handbook-protection-stateless-persons.html. 50 Id. Page 57. 51 “La Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional Genera Rechazo en RD.” OBMICA. 52 El Congreso Nacional de la República Dominicana. Ley 169-14. Consultoría Jurídica del Poder Ejecutivo. 53 Ley 169-14, art. 2 y 4. 54 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, American Jewish World Service, Centro de Desarrollo Sostenible, United Nations Democracy Fund. “Dreams Deferred: The Struggle of Dominicans of Haitian Descent to Get Their Nationality Back.” https://rfkhumanrights.org/assets/documents/rfk_dr_report-web_1.pdf. Pages 32-37. 55 Id., art. 6, 7 y 8. 56 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Chapter IV.B: Dominican Republic. 2016 Annual Report. https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/docs/annual/2016/docs/InformeAnual2016cap4B.RD-en.pdf. 9