the Court considered that the State of the Dominican Republic must adopt all necessary positive measures to facilitate access by the two victims to (late) registration procedures, in equal and non-discriminatory conditions, and to benefit from the full exercise and enjoyment of the right to Dominican nationality. Any requirement of proof of birth on Dominican territory should be reasonable and not constitute an obstacle to accessing the right to nationality.123 Thus, it is not sufficient for the State to respect the rights in the ACHR, it must also adopt all appropriate measures to guarantee them. By denying the right to nationality (including a birth certificate) for discriminatory reasons, the State was found responsible for placing the two children in a ‘situation of extreme vulnerability’, with no protection from the State, no access to the benefits due to them, living in the constant fear of being expelled and separated from their families.124 The State was also found responsible for consequentially violating the rights to juridical personality and to a name.125 Under the rules relating to the international law on State responsibility, it was asked to pay compensation to the victims, to publish the pertinent part of the judgment, to organize a public act of apology that would serve as a guarantee of non-repetition, in addition of course to recognizing their nationality.126 Finally, in Gelman v Uruguay,127 the Court considered the case of a child who had been kidnapped from her Argentinian parents and transferred to another family of Uruguayan citizenship resulting in the loss of her true identity. The Court recalled that a child is entitled to special protection under the ACHR as interpreted in harmony with provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.128 It held that the right to identity under Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child encompasses the right to nationality, to a name, and to family relationships,129 hence children should be able to enforce these rights in a court of law and seek compensation from offending States. In sum, the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights indicates that ‘nationality’ no longer is simply a State’s attribute; it is also now a human right. The approach of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is to look at both the act of denial of nationality in relation to the right to nationality and the consequences of the denial of nationality in relation to other human rights set out in the American Convention on Human Rights. In assessing the consequences of the denial of nationality, the Court takes account of Yean, ibid, para.171. Yean, ibid, para.173. 125 Yean, ibid, para.187. 126 Note a recent decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Dominican Republic, running contrary to the Yean and Bosico Children ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in that it ruled that a 29-year old woman who was officially registered as a Dominican citizens at birth, did not in fact meet the criteria for the acquisition of the Dominican nationality, and ‘requested the authorities to identify similar cases of Dominicans of Haitian descent formally registered as Dominicans as far back as 1929 who would not qualified as citizens under the Tribunal’s criteria’. UNHCR Press Release 1 October 2013 available at http://www.unhcr.org/524c0c929.html [accessed 24 October 2013]. 127 Gelman v Uruguay, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), 24 February 2011. 128 Gelman, para.121. 129 Gelman, para.122. 123 124 21