B. State 24. The State reports that on September 18, 2000, Steven Edward Hendrix was awarded the degrees of Lawyer and Notary. It states that Mr. Hendrix applied for admission to the CANG as a lawyer and a notary, but that during review of the documentation attached by the interested party, he was discovered to be a United States citizen. For this reason, it was decided that the Association could not authorize him to practice as a notary, but only as a lawyer, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Code of the Notarial Profession. Said code requires an applicant "to be Guatemalan by birth in order to practice the profession of notary in the State of Guatemala." This decision was recorded in document 3-2001 of February 6, 2001 and communicated to Mr. Hendrix on February 20, 2001. Consequently, the latter agreed to be admitted only as a lawyer and to be qualified on February 27, 2001, but in the end he did not appear on that date. Mr. Hendrix was subsequently admitted as a lawyer on December 17, 2001. 25. The State indicates that in January 2002 Mr. Hendrix lodged an appeal of the decision to qualify him only as a lawyer, and the case was therefore transferred to the Assembly of Presidents of the Professional Associations of Guatemala, which issued a decision denying the appeal on April 22, 2002. 26. The State reports that in May 2002 Mr. Hendrix filed an amparo appeal of the decision of the Assembly of Presidents of the Professional Associations of Guatemala with the Third Division of the Court of Appeals, which denied the requested amparo. He appealed to the Court of Constitutionality, which issued a judgment on April 21, 2004 vacating this ruling, granting amparo to Mr. Hendrix, and suspending the decision of the Assembly of Presidents of the Professional Associations. The Court ordered the Assembly to pronounce a decision on its behalf directing the CANG to issue a decision authorizing Mr. Hendrix to exercise the profession of notary on condition that the latter submit proof to the CANG of having acquired the citizenship mentioned in Article 146 of the Constitution. The State indicates that the Third Division of the Court of Appeals was given a period of five days to comply with the terms of the judgment. 27. In connection with the foregoing account, the State indicates that the Court of Constitutionality judgment of April 21, 2004 deciding the instant case was based on Article 146 of the Constitution, which provides as follows: Naturalization. Those who obtain naturalization in accordance with the law shall be considered Guatemalan. Naturalized Guatemalans shall have the same rights as native Guatemalans, except for the limitations established in this Constitution. 28. Article 144 also establishes the following: Nationality of origin. Those born in the territory of the Republic of Guatemala or in Guatemalan vessels or aircraft, and the children of a Guatemalan father or mother born abroad, shall be considered Guatemalan. The offspring of diplomatic officials and those who perform legally comparable duties shall be excepted. No native Guatemalan may be deprived of his or her citizenship. 29. The State points out that the Inter-American Court has interpreted Article 24 of the Convention to mean that states may differentiate between different situations in a fair and reasonable manner and may categorize specific groups of individuals, provided they do so for a legitimate purpose and the classification is reasonably related to the intent of the law. In this connection, the State points out that Articles 140 and 141 of the Constitution provide as follows: