This Assembly of Presidents of Professional Associations, on review of this appeal, finds that the Association of Lawyers and Notaries of Guatemala acted in accordance with our laws and that at no time were the principles of the constitution or international conventions violated. Therefore, this appeal is denied and the resolution under appeal is upheld.11 34. On May 9, 2002, the alleged victim filed a writ of amparo before the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals against the resolutions of the Association of Lawyers and Notaries and the Assembly of Presidents of the Professional Associations of Guatemala that denied his registration as a notary. The alleged victim alleged the violation of a number of constitutional rights and emphasized that “there is no reasonable justification for a citizenship requirement for notaries.” He noted that under international treaties, Guatemala already receives notaries from other countries, adding that “the Association of Lawyers and Notaries of Guatemala committed an act ultra vires because it is not authorized to refuse registration of degrees granted by the Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala (USAC). Article 89 of the Constitution makes it clear that “only universities that are legally authorized can grant degrees and issue higher education titles and diplomas to graduates.”12 35. On June 25, 2002, the court rejected the amparo appeal, finding as follows: (...) It is clear from the resolution itself that, as the action under appeal, it did not cause damage to the amparo appellant, as a reading of it shows it does not deny the granting of a degree but rather declines to authorize the exercise of the notary profession by appellant Steven Edward Hendrix because he does not meet the requirement of being a Guatemalan citizen, as required for this procedure, for which reason the amparo is clearly inadmissible. With regard to the appealed action of the Assembly of Presidents of Professional Associations of Guatemala, like the resolution addressed above, there is no evidence that the with its decision, this authority caused damage to the appellant (...) Therefore, this Court concludes that there is no evidence of any of the violations alleged, and the amparo appeal before us is inadmissible. The appellant is thus ordered to pay the court costs (...).13 36. Later, the alleged victim filed an amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court. On April 21, 2004, that court granted the amparo, with the condition that the alleged victim become a Guatemalan citizen. It found as follows: (...) the argument of the appellant supported by the jurisprudential precedents he cites and related international treaties (signed by Guatemala on the subject of world trade) cannot be adopted by this Court because Guatemala’s notary system—in line with the so-called “Latin Notary” system—is different from the notary system in the country (United States of America) from which the legal precedents on which the appellant seeks to base his claim are issued. Additionally, the notary system in Guatemala does not conceptualize the notary function as “a service,” and therefore, the international trade treaties (on services) cited by the appellant are not applicable. (...) nevertheless, it considers that the fact that a professional degree has been validly conferred on a person who, because of his nationality, in accordance with the provisions of statutory law, would not be able to exercise the profession to which this degree admits him gives rise to a constitutional conflict between one constitutional provision (Article 81 of the Political Constitution of the Republic), which establishes that “the acquired rights of professional practice of holders of said degrees (which include university degrees) must be respected, and no provisions of any kind may be promulgated that limit or restrict them” and another, contained in Article 2(1) of the Code of the Notary Profession, which states that, to obtain authorization to exercise the profession of notary, it is necessary to “be a native Guatemalan, of the age of majority, lay, and domiciled in the Republic.” (...) In the opinion of the Court, the aforementioned conflict may be resolved by applying Article 146 of the Political Constitution of the Republic, which provides that “naturalized Guatemalans shall have the same rights as native Guatemalans, except for the limitations established in this Constitution,” none of which concern the exercise of the profession of notary. Annex 2. Resolution No. 1151.13.02.02 of April 22, 2002, issued by the Assembly of Presidents of the Professional Associations of Guatemala. Annex to the initial petition of November 5, 2004. 12 Annex 3. Amparo appeal filed by Steven E. Hendrix before the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals of Guatemala on May 9, 2002. Annex to the initial petition of November 5, 2004. 13 Annex 4. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of April 21, 2004. Annex to the initial petition of November 5, 2004. 11 6