Chapter 2 The Right to Nationality and Judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court | 67 6, 8 and 11 of Law No. 169-14 from continuing to have legal effects” and to “adopt, within a reasonable time, the measures required to annul any law or regulation of any nature, whether administrative, regulatory, legal or constitutional, as well as any practice, decision, or interpretation that establishes or has the effect that the irregular status of parents who are aliens constitutes grounds for denying Dominican nationality to those born on the territory of the Dominican Republic.” 141 135. On November 4, 2014, thirteen days after issuance of the Inter-American Court’s judgment in the Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, the Dominican Republic’s Constitutional Court delivered judgment TC/0256/14 in which it declared unconstitutional the document that the Dominican Republic had deposited with the OAS General Secretariat in which it accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Constitutional Court’s judgment was based on the argument that the document had not been approved by Congress. 142 136. In keeping with Article 62 of the American Convention, the instrument accepting the binding jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court was approved on February 19, 1999 by the then President of the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernández, and subsequently deposited on March 25, 1999, by former Ambassador Flavio Darío Espinal, Permanent Representative of the Dominican Republic to the OAS at the time. 143 137. It is worth recalling what the Inter-American Court wrote concerning the object and purpose of human rights treaties, such as the American Convention on Human Rights, to the effect that its object and purpose is the protection of the basic rights of individual human beings irrespective of their nationality, 144 and this requires that its provisions be applied in such a way as to exert a useful impact. Unlike the classic international treaty, intended to create subjective and reciprocal obligations among States Parties, the obligations that the States undertake upon ratifying treaties for collective protection of human rights, such as the American Convention, are essentially objective in nature and designed to protect the human rights of human beings from violations committed by a State Party. For its part, the Convention 141 142 143 144 I/A Court H.R. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C. No., par. 172. Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic. Available [in Spanish] at the following link: Sentencia TC/0256/14, November 4, 2014. See, Dominican Republic, Instrument accepting the binding jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [Document on file with the Commission]. See also, Organization of American States. Press release of March 25, 1999. Available [in Spanish] at the following link: ‘‘Republica Dominicana Reconoce la Competencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos’’ [Dominican Republic Accepts Jurisdiction of Inter-American Court of Human Rights]. In greater detail, the Inter-American Court has contended that modern human rights treaties in general, and the American Convention in particular, are not multilateral treaties of the traditional type concluded to accomplish the reciprocal exchange of rights for the mutual benefit of the contracting States. Their object and purpose is the protection of the basic rights of individual human beings, irrespective of their nationality, both against the State of their nationality and all other contracting States. In concluding these human rights treaties, the States can be deemed to submit themselves to a legal order within which they, for the common good, assume various obligations, not in relation to other States, but towards all individuals within their jurisdiction. See: I/A Court H.R, The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 29. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | IACHR