Chapter 1 Introduction | 39 61. 62. require qualifications, additional information or more rigorous and objective analyses.”47 With regard to the above, the Commission deems it is important to point out that the historical context that is described in the present report was drafted and checked by applying the methodology mentioned in paragraphs 57 and 58, which has also been confirmed by observations made by the Commission over the years on the basis of visits, country reports, and hearings about various human rights situations in the Dominican Republic. In view of the relationship between the historical context and the facts reviewed in the present report, the Commission has deemed it relevant to examine the above-mentioned context. The facts examined in the present report have been established in a context of discrimination against the Haitian population and persons of Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic. The Commission recalls that, in the discharge of its duties of monitoring the human rights situation of the States of the OAS, it has been apprised of various historical, social, and political contexts that have made it possible to pinpoint the alleged incidents as violations of the American Convention in the framework of the specific circumstances where they occurred or that led to them. In addition, in some situations, a review of the historical context has made it possible to characterize the facts as part of a systematic pattern of human rights violations. Likewise, review of the historical context is crucial in the present report, since the Commission considers that the criterion established in judgment TC/0168/13, as well as the measures that have been adopted to enforce this judgment, has been a crucial stage in the process of historical revisionism promoted by Dominican authorities, aimed at consolidating an interpretation that establishes that persons born in the Dominican Republic of Haitian parents with an irregular migratory status do not have the right to Dominican nationality pursuant to application of the jus soli principle. D. Preparation, approval and follow-up of the report 63. The Commission considered and adopted the draft of the present report on October 24, 2015. According to Article 60(a) of its Rules of Procedure, it forwarded the draft of the report to the Dominican State on November 24, 2015 and requested the latter to submit its observations by December 15, 2015. By means of the communication of December 1, 2015, the State requested the Commission to grant an indefinite extension so that it could submit its observations. 48 On December 9, 2015, the Commission informed the State that an extension was granted up to December 21, 2015. Afterwards, by means of the note of December 14, 2015, the Dominican State 47 Ibid., p. 4. Dominican Republic, Permanent Mission of the Dominican Republic to the Organization of American States. Note MP-RD-OEA 1337-15: Document on the “Draft Report of the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic,” December 1, 2015. [Document in the Commission’s files]. 48 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | IACHR