Chapter 2 The Right to Nationality and Judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court | 105 irregularly registered into the Dominican Republic’s Civil Registry”; (iii) assemble special annual record books of foreigners born between June 21, 1929 and April 18, 2007, the date on which the Central Electoral Board, through Resolution 02-2007, put into effect the “Registry of Children Born to Foreign Mothers who do not have residency status in the Dominican Republic,” and then administratively transfer the births that appear on the list of List of foreigners irregularly registered into the Dominican Republic’s Civil Registry to the new record books of births of foreigners for the year corresponding to each birth; (iv) notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of all births transferred pursuant to the preceding paragraph so that it, in turn, may make the corresponding notifications both to the persons that those births concern and to the consulates and embassies or diplomatic delegations, as appropriate, for the necessary legal purposes. 245. For acquisition of Dominican nationality based on jus soli, the treatment that Judgment TC/0168/13 gives to persons born on Dominican soil to parents who are or were foreigners residing irregularly in the country, is different from the treatment given to others born on Dominican soil. It is important to point out that given the different ways that persons born within Dominican territory are treated, which are based on law (or the practices or decisions that determine how those laws will be enforced or interpreted), it is up to the State to show that the difference in treatment does not imply a violation of the right to equal protection before the law in the case of persons who, having been born within Dominican territory, cannot obtain Dominican nationality. Here, the Court has written that a difference in treatment is discriminatory when it has no objective and reasonable justification, 250 in other words, when it does not seek a legitimate purpose and when the means used are disproportionate to the purpose sought. 251 246. In Judgment TC/1068/13, the Constitutional Court wrote that unlike the children of foreigners who “obtain a permit for legal residency”, “foreigners […] with an irregular migratory situation […]may not claim that their children born in the country are entitled to Dominican nationality, […] as it is legally indefensible to assert that a de facto illegal situation creates rights.” The Commission agrees with what the Inter-American Court wrote concerning judgment TC/0168/13 to the effect that: [t]he argument concerning the “illegal situation” of the alien who “is in an irregular migratory situation,” refers to aliens in an irregular situation, and not to their children. In other words, the difference between those born in Dominican territory who are children of aliens is not made based on a situation 250 251 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. OC-17/02, par. 46; Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003, par. 84, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activists of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279), para. 200. Cf. Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activists of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, par. 200. (The following jurisprudence is cited in that judgment: ECHR, Case of D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, No. 57325/00. Judgment of 13 November 2007, par. 196, and ECHR, Case of Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06. Judgment of 22 December 2009, par. 42). Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | IACHR