change his citizenship in order to exercise the profession for which he was educated, trained, and sworn in the country. 7. He stated that according to the State, the justification for prohibiting a foreigner has to do with the fact that notary is a public office and that this was the Latin notary system, and therefore, precedents cannot be invoked as in the US common-law system. In this regard, he stated that the notary profession in Guatemala is a public function, although notaries are not public officials, and that precedents in the United States prohibiting restrictions on access to the exercise of notary work based on national origin also apply to Latin notary systems in the United States, such as in Puerto Rico and Louisiana, which are members of the International Union of Notaries. It also added that the Commission of the European Communities has found that a nationality requirement for the exercise of notary work is not applicable, even in countries with a civil law history in which the notary profession involves a public social function. 8. As far as rights, he alleged the violation of the right to nationality, arguing that denial of his registration by the Association of Lawyers and Notaries was discriminatory and arbitrary based on his nationality. 9. He also alleged a violation of the principle of equal protection. In this regard, he indicated that there is no legitimate or reasonable justification for prohibiting a foreigner with the required education from exercising the notary profession in Guatemala. He states that Guatemala’s international obligations on being a member of the inter-American system and the World Trade Organization prohibit nondiscrimination and supersede any requirement of the Code of the Notary Profession prohibiting foreigners from exercising that profession in Guatemala. 10. The petitioner continued by alleging a violation of his right to work. In this regard, he stated that the right to work must be guaranteed without discrimination based on nationality. This was not the case here, where he was subject to an arbitrary restriction on exercising a profession because he was not Guatemalan, or allowed to exercise the profession only after renouncing his US nationality. 11. Lastly, he alleged violation of the duty to adopt domestic legal effects based on the contradiction he argues exists between domestic law prohibiting non-Guatemalans from exercising the notary profession and international provisions. B. State 12. With regard to background, the State indicated that on September 18, 2000, the alleged victim was granted the titles of lawyer and notary. He then proceeded to request registration with the Association of Lawyers and Notaries of Guatemala. However, in January 2002, the association’s governing board informed him that his registration as a notary was rejected because he was not a native Guatemalan citizen, pursuant to the requirements of article 2 of the Code of the Notary Profession. 13. It added that the petitioner filed a writ of amparo before the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals, which denied the writ. However, in hearing the appeal, the Constitutional Court ruled on April 21, 2004, to grant the amparo and allow the appellant’s registration to exercise the notary profession, but on the condition that in order to receive such authorization, the alleged victim must become a Guatemalan citizen. 14. It argued that the prohibition on foreigners exercising the notary profession did not violate any constitutional law or conventional provision and underscored that States can make fair and reasonable distinctions in response to different situations. Specifically, it stated that in Guatemala, the notary profession is vested with the legal authority to attest documents delegated by the State of Guatemala and is held in esteem as a public official, adding that the exercise of this profession in reserved exclusive to Guatemalans in order to protect Guatemalan sovereignty. It stated that the mere fact that a notary in Guatemala is vested with the legal authority to attest documents is enough to justify restricting exercise of this profession exclusively to Guatemalans. 2