DOMINICANS ANGERED BY VERDICT AT INTER-AMERICAN

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