on Dominican territory and lived there for up to 40 years.139 Most of them ‘face a situation of permanent illegality, which they transmit to their children, who cannot obtain Dominican nationality because, according to the restrictive interpretation that Dominican Authorities give to article 11 of the Constitution, they are children of “foreigners in transit.”’140 Hence, there are significant obstacles for these children to receive a birth certificate, which entitles them to attend a public school, and have access to healthcare and social assistance services. Furthermore, because of precarious economic conditions and fear of deportation, many families of Haitian origin use the late declaration of birth procedure to declare their children born in the Dominican Republic.141 To make the late declaration of birth procedure for children under 13, parents should produce three pieces of evidence; for the registration of children over 13 years, there is a list of 11 requirements.142 When the Yean and Bosico children’s parents made the late declaration of birth, both children were under the age of 13. However, the registrar refused their registration, because the documents presented were insufficient for late registration, based on a list of 11 requirements. The IACtHR observed in this regard that the state ‘adopted different positions regarding the requirements the children had to fulfil’ and that ‘there are no standard criteria for demanding and applying the requirements for late birth registration of children under 13 years of age in the Dominican Republic’.143 The IACtHR further noted that, although the determination of who has a right to be a national falls within a state’s domestic jurisdiction, this discretionary authority may be restricted in order to protect individuals against arbitrary acts of states.144 Thus, there are two state obligations in this respect: to provide individuals with the equal and effective protection of the law and to reduce statelessness.145 In particular: ‘the peremptory legal principle of the equal and effective protection of the law and non-discrimination determines that, when regulating mechanisms for granting nationality, States must abstain from producing regulations that are discriminatory or have discriminatory effects on certain groups of population when exercising their rights.’ 146 Moreover, the obligation to respect and ensure the principle of the right to equal protection and nondiscrimination applies irrespective of a person’s migratory status in a state. Accordingly, states have the ‘obligation to ensure this fundamental principle to its citizens and to any foreigner who is on its territory, without any discrimination based on regular or irregular residence, nationality, race, gender or any other cause’.147 Therefore, the Dominican Republic was obliged to adopt all necessary positive measures for the Yean and Bosico children to access the late registration procedure in conditions of equality and non-discrimination, and fully exercise and enjoy their right to Dominican nationality.148 The implications of this ruling are very powerful: the IACtHR strongly condemned racial discrimination in access to nationality and upheld equality of treatment to all individuals on the state’s territory. Lessons from EU law The principle of non-discrimination based on nationality149 and sex150 featured strongly from the inception of the European Communities, that is, the predecessor of the EU. Recent years have marked the further development of the principle of nondiscrimination in EU law. Thus, the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam introduced Article 13 TEC (now Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [TFEU]) to provide that the Council may adopt secondary legislation against discrimination on several grounds, such as sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. This list of grounds does not, however, include national minority status, nationality or language.151 This section overviews the provisions of secondary legislation adopted under Article 19 TFEU (ex Article 13 TEC) which minority groups could indirectly benefit from, and discusses relevant case law. Within one year of Article 13 TEC’s (now Article 19 TFEU) entering into force, the Council adopted Directives on the ‘Equal Treatment between Persons Irrespective of Racial or Ethnic Origin’ (Race Directive)152 and on ‘Establishing a General Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation’ (Employment Directive).153 In addition, in 2004, the Council adopted a Directive on Equal Treatment in Access to and Supply of Goods and Services 154 (Goods and Services Directive) to combat gender discrimination in provision of goods and services. The Directives require member states to protect individuals against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimization on the grounds of racial and ethnic origin (Race Directive), sex (Goods and Services Directive), and religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation (Employment Directive). The scope of the Race Directive is significantly wider, because it applies to employment and occupation, the provision of goods and services, including education in both public and private spheres. Conversely, the Employment Directive has a MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE 15