This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 SANTO DOMINGO 004611 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT FOR WHA, WHA/OAS, WHA/CAR, DRL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PREL DR OAS
SUBJECT: DOMINICANS ANGERED BY VERDICT AT INTER-AMERICAN 
COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 
 
¶1. (U) On October 8 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 
published its 91-page decision ordering the Dominican 
government to pay USD 26,000 in compensation to families of 
two Dominican children of Haitian ancestry to whom officials 
refused to issue birth certificates. The mother of each child 
had been born in the Dominican Republic.  The case was 
brought to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission in 1998 
by a non-governmental organization representing 
Dominico-Haitian Women. The group received legal assistance 
from the International Human Rights Legal Clinic of the 
University of California, Berkeley. 
 
¶2.  (U) At issue were the refusal of the government to 
register the births, the lack of a procedure to accept 
delayed declarations of birth, the lack of recourse to the 
judicial system, and the establishment of procedures for the 
registration, even if belated, of births of Dominican 
children of Haitian ancestry.  After lengthy attempts by the 
Commission to promote an amicable solution, on September 25, 
2001 the government issued birth certificates to the children 
(one then aged 16, the other aged 4) but dealt with none of 
the other concerns. The Commission recommended various 
government actions and found that the government had 
infringed 8 articles of the Inter-American Convention on 
Human Rights concerning the rights of the child, the rights 
to nationality, to equality before the law, to registry of 
identity by the authorities, to a name, and the obligation of 
the state to respect citizens, right. 
 
¶3.  (U) When the government declined to accept most of the 
recommendations and refused to acknowledge infringements, on 
July 11, 2003 the Commission submitted the matter to the 
Court. 
 
¶4.  (U) The Court accepted evidence and held hearings over a 
period of two years.  In the last stages of the evidentiary 
process the Dominican government argued that the case should 
not fall within jurisdiction of the court because the 
plaintiffs had not exhausted all recourse in the Dominican 
Republic, the government,s issuance of birth certificates 
constituted an amicable solution, and the events pre-dated 
Dominican acceptance on March 25, 1999 of the authority of 
the Court. 
 
¶5.  (U) The Court rejected all three Dominican arguments and 
found decisively in favor of the plaintiffs.  A sample of its 
tone, in paragraph 166 of the decision: 
 
&The Court considers that in requiring the girls to comply 
with requirements different from those generally required of 
minors of 13 years of age seeking Dominican nationality, the 
government acted in arbitrary fashion, without reasonable or 
objective criteria, and in a manner contrary to the best 
interests of the child, thereby engaging in discrimination 
prejudicing the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico. 
This situation caused them to be situated on the margins of 
the legal structure of the state and to remain in a condition 
of statelessness, which placed them in a situation of extreme 
vulnerability concerning the exercise and enjoyment of their 
rights.8 
 
¶6.  (U) The Court upheld the view of the Commission that the 
Dominican government had failed to respect the 8 articles in 
the Convention.  It ordered the government to publish in the 
Dominican official gazette and in a nationally circulated 
newspaper within 6 months the court,s summary of its 
findings, as well as an apology to the two children.  It 
stated that the government should make changes in the law 
within a reasonable period so as to facilitate birth 
registrations, including via belated declarations.  In 
addition to the compensation adjudged to the plaintiffs, the 
Court directed the government to pay USD 6,000 to the 
plaintiffs, representatives for compensation of costs of 
supporting organizations. 
 
- - - - - 
Reactions 
- - - - - 
 
¶7.  (U) In comments to the press on October 8 Vice President 
Rafael Alburquerque said that the Dominican government is not 
xenophobic towards Haitians; the &Haitian problem8 must be 
resolved by the international community and not by the 
Dominican Republic. 
 
¶8. (SBU)  Dominican editorialists have been bristling over 
the last ten days about an &international campaign to 
discredit the Dominican Republic8 carried out by Haiti and 
interests in developed countries, probably in anticipation of 
the Court,s verdict.  Prominent politician Representative 
Pelegrin Castillo, regularly the voice for alarmists on 
Haiti, asserted that the Court,s decision is &part of a 
plan on behalf of the Haitian government along with the 
superpowers to resolve Haiti,s problems on the territory of 
the Dominican Republic. . . every time the Dominican Republic 
makes progress with its migration policy, there is a sudden 
international campaign to discredit and damage national 
interests.8 
 
¶9. (U) Foreign Minister Morales Troncoso initially declined 
comment, promising a reply on Monday, October 10.  He 
released a statement on October 11 characterizing the verdict 
&categorically unacceptable.8  He said that the Dominican 
government had done nothing illegal and should not be obliged 
to pay compensation; he emphasized that the government does 
not promote discrimination.  The Court,s reasoning was not 
based on the facts of the case and showed a lack of knowledge 
of both Haitian and Dominican constitutional law.  &The 
evidence provided by the government,s representatives were 
ignored, as if the verdict had been conceived of in advance 
as a condemnation of our country.8 
 
¶10.  (U) Morales Troncos repeated the government,s arguments 
that it had acted in good faith and that the case was without 
foundation because the government had issued birth 
certificates to the petitioners in 2001. &There was never 
any obstacle to their right to education; they did not lose a 
single year of school and at no moment were they stateless, a 
contention that our representatives demonstrated to the 
court.8 
 
Comment 
 
¶11. (SBU)  The Foreign Minister,s emphatic reply is 
consonant with the general line in Dominican political 
circles and most of the press -- that the Dominican Republic 
is the victim here, not the Haitian-Dominican children.  This 
defensive anger is widespread in Dominican society.  Morales 
Troncoso rejected the Court,s verdict but he did not deal 
with the institutional or international implications of his 
reply.  The country bound itself in 1999 to accept the 
jurisdiction of the Court, and there is no further appeal to 
the devastating judgment. A cooling-off period may be 
necessary; it appears unlikely, however, that this government 
will comply with the instructions of the court to publish the 
verdict, apologize, and compensate those who were prejudiced. 
 If the government holds out, that attitude will leave it in 
a doubtful position vis--vis its international obligations 
and could bring into question the effectiveness of the Court. 
HERTELL