that, in order to exercises profession, one must be Guatemalan. This is therefore a restriction and differentiated treatment imposed on the exercise of the right to perform a profession based on national origin. 44. Hereinafter, the Commission will analyze whether this legal restriction is compatible with the criteria required by the American Convention, taking into account the rigorous scrutiny required for a case like this one in which the restriction and differentiated treatment is based on one of the categories established in Article 1(1)—in this case, national origin. The IACHR recalls that, for the purpose of determining whether a restriction on the exercise of a right is acceptable under the Convention, both the Commission and the Court have used a graduated proportionality test that considers the following elements: (i) the legality of the restriction—that is, if it is established in law both formally and in practice; (ii) the existence of a legitimate aim; (iii) suitability—that is, if the measure has a logical connection to the aim pursued; (iv) necessity—that is, determination of whether other alternatives exist that would be less restrictive and equally suitable; and (v) strict proportionality—that is, balancing the interests in question against the degree of sacrifice.23 - Legality of the restriction 45. With regard to the requirement of legality of the restriction, the Commission underscores that the decisions to block the alleged victim from exercising the notary profession in Guatemala were based on article 2(1) of the Code of the Notary Profession, which establishes that, among other things, in order to exercise this profession, one must “Be a native Guatemalan, of the age of majority, lay, and domiciled in the Republic, save for the provision set forth in subparagraph 2 of article 6 (...).” Taking this into account, the IACHR finds that the legality requirement of the restriction is satisfied. - Aim of the restriction 46. As regards legitimate aim, the Commission observes that the State argued that the purpose of the restriction was to protect Guatemalan sovereignty, as the notary profession in Guatemala is vested with the authority to attest documents. The Commission highlights that the notary performs important public functions by “conferring transparency, security, and legal certainty upon those acts or business dealings to which they attest,”24 and misconduct can affect not only private parties but also public and general interests.25 Therefore, the Commission finds that the State’s invocation of “sovereignty” as a mechanism to guarantee the proper use of the authority to attest to public documents constitutes a legitimate aim. Therefore, the Commission finds that this requirement is satisfied. - Suitability of the restriction 47. As regards the suitability of the restriction, the IACHR must evaluate whether there is a means-to-an-end relationship between the distinction and the end sought with it—that is, whether the restriction contributes in some way to achieving the aim, regardless of degree of effectiveness. 48. The IACHR notes that the State made the argument of “sovereignty” to justify the restriction and differentiated treatment in this case, limiting itself to stating that the mere fact that notaries are vested with the legal authority to attest documents is enough to justify restricting exercise of this profession exclusively to Guatemalans. It also highlighted that in Guatemala, notaries are “public officials.” The IACHR must therefore evaluate, based on the State’s justification, whether prohibiting foreigners from exercising the notary profession in Guatemala in some way contributes to the aim invoked by the State. Inter-American Court. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (in vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 273; Inter-American Court. Case of Atala Riffo and girls v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 146. 24 Decision of the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of January 27, 2004. Registration number: 17,951, Volume XIX, February 2004, page 452. 25 International Union of Notaries, Legislature Activity Report 2017-2019, pg. 3. 23 9