not guarantee the objectives established by law, but rather only one of them, that of accountability, omitting independence, which is central in the exercise of the notarial function. 8. Consequently the measure adopted by the State of Guatemala is suitable to achieve the legitimate objectives sought because the nationality requirement makes it possible to ensure permanent oversight and accountability and reinforces the concept of the independence of notaries. It is an appropriate state measure to achieve the State’s legitimate objectives. 9. Lastly, it is necessary to examine whether the nationality requirement is a necessary and proportionate measure taking into account the functions performed by a notary in Guatemala. Nationality can be considered a legal and political relationship that connects a person to the State; it binds that person to the State by ties of loyalty and fidelity and ensures his diplomatic and consular protection. 7 This means that the individual acquires and exercises the rights and responsibilities inherent in membership of a political community. It is worth underlining that the exercise of the public function by notaries is a right, but it is also an obligation because its exercise cannot be denied if requested. The State delegates public functions to the notary by law, and vests him with attestation authority; thus, it is reasonably possible to require the notary to have a legal and political relationship that binds him to the State. The State has competence to establish the system for the attribution of attestation authority that guarantees oversight of the delegated function and effective accountability. Based on these considerations, it may be concluded that the nationality requirement established in the laws of Guatemala is both necessary – because there are no alternatives that permit full compliance with the said objective – and strictly proportionate. Regarding the latter, the sacrifice inherent in the restriction is not exaggerated or excessive in relation to the advantages obtained by this limitation. 8 It should not be forgotten that notaries are vested with attestation authority in the exercise of their functions and, in the case of Guatemala, they are also auxiliaries of the administration of justice. Accordingly, the requirement that such persons be nationals of the State on behalf of which they act does not signify a disproportionate restriction. 10. Additionally, given that the requirement of nationality includes the possibility of interests; rather, he knows that if he does not comply with the mandates of the State Department or any other United State public entity that has this authority, he will be failing to exercise the profession or the mandate he has received from the State of Guatemala, which, in this case, is totally unrelated to that relationship. In other words, here, we are losing sight of the characteristic of independence that the Latin notary should have. […] Also, let us suppose that he could have roots without having nationality; then, the other aspect we face is that any measure that he takes of a precautionary [nature], a bond, a surety, whatever, this is not going to be a complete guarantee that this foreign notary will enjoy total independence in relation to the requirements of Guatemalan law because if, tomorrow, Mr. Hendrix receives a subpoena from the United States preventing him from attending to a list of potential clients in the Republic of Guatemala, he is not independent. Opinion provided by Gabriel Orellana before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on March 28, 2022. 7 Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 91 and Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 35. It is also worth pointing out that the said Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 indicates that: “while it is traditionally accepted that the determination and regulation of nationality are matters for each State to decide, contemporary developments reveal that international law imposes certain limits on the broad discretionary powers enjoyed by States in that area and that, currently, the regulation of nationality involves not only the jurisdiction of the States, but also the requirement of the full protection of human rights,” para. 32. 8 83. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 3