THE RISK OF STATELESSNESS 72 YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J. 2017 [Vol. 19 C. Expelled Dominicans and Haitians vs. Dominican Republic In Expelled Dominicans and Haitians vs. Dominican Republic, the InterAmerican Court responded to the arguments of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court that Dominican-born persons of Haitian descent were not stateless because they derived Haitian nationality jus sanguinis under the Haitian Constitution. In this instance, the Court retreated from its earlier position expressed in The Girls Yean and Bosico that the Dominican Republic left Dominican-born persons of Haitian descent stateless when it refused to register them as Dominican nationals. In Expelled Dominicans and Haitians, by contrast, the Inter-American Court found that the Dominican State had an obligation to resolve the “risk of statelessness” faced by children of Haitian descent born in its territory,167 and moreover that its failure to do so triggered the obligation to guarantee Dominican nationality to those persons.168 In this way, the Court extended the well-established rule that a state must grant its nationality to stateless children born in its territory, and required protection of children who face a risk of statelessness. The following discussion closely examines the reasoning of the Inter-American Court. Expelled Dominicans and Haitians concerned the practice of collective expulsion from the Dominican Republic, characterized by the mass deportation of persons to Haiti without process, based largely on their physical appearance.169 The victims in the case included two individuals and four families, some of whom were Dominicans with nationality documents and others who were Dominican-born but who did not have nationality documents.170 The victims made a range of allegations relating to their right to nationality, including claims that Dominican officials deported them without consideration of either their national identity documents171 or the fact that they had been born in the Dominican Republic.172 The Inter-American Court then analyzed these allegations’ compatibility with the Dominican Republic’s obligation to respect the right to nationality in conjunction with related rights, in particular the principles of equality and non-discrimination.173 In its decision, the Inter-American Court set forth the legal standards it 167. Id. ¶ 298. 168. Id. ¶ 458. 169. Id. ¶¶ 167-171. 170. Id. ¶¶ 65-76 (describing the circumstances of the Medina family, the Fils-Aimé family, Bersson Gelin, Sensión Family, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, and the Jean family). 171. See id. ¶¶ 201, 221 (citing testimony of Wilian Medina and Rafaelito Pérez Charles). 172. See id. ¶¶ 209-12 (citing testimony of Jeanty Fils-Aimé); id. ¶¶ 213-15 (citing testimony of Bersson Gelin); id. ¶¶ 222-24 (citing testimony of Victor, Miguel, Victoria, and Natalie Jean). 173. The Inter-American Court commonly analyzes certain human rights obligations in conjunction with one another, as it did in this case where it considered violations of the rights to juridical personality, to a name, to nationality, and to identity, in relation to the rights of the child, to equal protection, and the obligations to respect rights without discrimination and to adopt domestic legal provisions. See id. at ¶¶ 225, 343. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3111529