26 the provisions that were in force and had failed to comply with essential steps of the legal procedure, and this resulted in the invalidity of the nationality title and deprived it of legal effect. The causes established in article 12 of the Regulation to the Nationality Law were never expressly invoked. The acquisition of Peruvian nationality is regulated by three provisions of the Constitution in force. Nationality is recognized as a fundamental right. Article 52 states that Peruvians by birth are those born in the territory of the Republic, and by consanguinity, those born to a Peruvian father or mother. Nationality by option also exists; this occurs when someone who is not Peruvian marries a Peruvian national. Finally, nationality may be acquired by naturalization. Article 53 of the Constitution stipulates that nationality can only be lost by express renunciation before the Peruvian authorities. The Constitution states that the legislation should establish the form of acquiring or recovering nationality. Nationality Law, No. 26,574, of January 11, 1996, is currently in force. This determines the competent organ for granting or canceling nationality, the procedure and the requirements. This law also has a regulation that details the requirements for acquiring nationality and establishes how it is lost. Nationality can only be lost by express renunciation before the Migration Directorate or on the grounds established in article 12 of the regulation to the Nationality Law. These include public interest and national interest and also acts that could affect national security. According to Supreme Decree No. 00497 of May 25, 1997, the fact that national security is affected constitutes a reason for cancellation, but this is not reflected in the Constitution, which only mentions loss due to renunciation before the Peruvian authorities. Similarly, article 15 of the regulation indicates that the President of the Republic may cancel naturalization, without stating the cause, when national security so requires, a very broad and general concept, that could make the right to nationality meaningless. The expansion of the grounds for losing nationality contained in the said regulation is unconstitutional. Since the above-mentioned supreme decree “does not withstand constitutional examination”, petitions to have it annulled were filed through popular action, but were rejected by the Public Law Chamber. Mr. Ivcher acquired Peruvian nationality through a “supreme resolution”, and the decision that annulled his nationality title was a “directorial resolution”. Within the structure of the Peruvian legal system there are differences between these administrative acts. The “supreme resolution”, issued by the Minister and signed by the President of the Republic, ranks highest; it is followed by the “ministerial resolution” and then the “deputy ministerial resolution”, and lastly, the “directorial resolution”. Consequently, a “directorial resolution” cannot disregard what has been established in a “supreme resolution”. If it does, it becomes an invalid legal act. In Peru, administrative acts are regulated by the Administrative Procedures Law, articles 109 and 110 of which establish the possibility of declaring de oficio that an act is invalid when it suffers from a presumption of invalidity, but also establishes a period of six months to do so. In this case, the annulment decision was blatantly outside this period, because 13 years had elapsed and also, if it had been executed within the legal period, a superior official should have declared the invalidity.