15. It underscored that although the petitioner stated that the World Trade Organization treaty signed by Guatemala prohibits discriminatory treatment of the nationals of other countries with regard to access to work, these specific trade provisions are not applicable to the notary profession because it is a liberal profession with specific requirements under Guatemalan law. 16. The State also addressed the precedents invoked by the petitioner, especially precedents in the U.S., where there are no nationality restrictions or prohibitions on performing notary work. In this regard, it stated that the Guatemalan notary system is different because it follows the tradition of the Latin notary, in which the notary exercises a public function based on State authority. In contrast, it indicated that in the U.S. notary system, notaries do not perform a public function or assess the legality of juristic acts. Instead, their function is limited solely and exclusively to ratifying signatures without regard to the content of documents. 17. It stated that in contrast to the petitioner’s claims, he has not been deprived of the titles granted to him. Rather, he was informed that in order to exercise the profession of notary in Guatemala, he must first become a Guatemalan citizen, in view of the special dignity of the exercise of the notary profession in Guatemala, and that once he met this requirement, he would be recognized as a registered notary. 18. Guatemala stated that it reiterated its willingness to fully recognize Steven Edward Hendrix and permit him to exercise the notary profession as long as he complies with the judgment of the Constitutional Court requiring him to become a naturalized Guatemalan citizen in order to be registered as a notary, pursuant to the Political Constitution of the Republic. 19. In addition, during the merits stage, the State argued that the alleged victim did not exhaust domestic remedies because he failed in this case to bring a constitutional challenge against article 2 of the Notary Code if he believed that article violated a constitutional right. 20. With regard to rights, the State argued that it did not violate the right to nationality because the alleged victim had not been arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or his right to change it. Rather, article 2 of the Code of the Notary Profession stipulates a nationality requirement to exercise the notary profession, a requirement that must be met by the petitioner. 21. The Guatemalan State held that it did not violate the principle of equal protection because the prohibition on foreigners exercising the notary profession in Guatemala is based on reasonable rationale, as notaries have the legal authority to attest documents. The limit is therefore intended to protect national sovereignty. It said that the State, in the legitimate exercise of its sovereignty, may determine which individuals can be assigned public functions, as in the case of the authority to attest documents with which notaries in Guatemala are legally vested. It added that a number of countries that use the Latin notary system and are members of the International Notary Union—including Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ecuador, Honduras, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela—require citizenship in order to exercise the notary profession, without violating the principle of equal protection. 22. The State underscored that the alleged victim’s right to work was not violated. It specifically highlighted that the right to work is not being infringed given that the alleged victim can work as a lawyer without any restrictions beyond those established in domestic law. However, he cannot work as a notary in Guatemala because the law establishes that in order to do so, he must be a Guatemalan citizen. This does not infringe upon the labor rights of foreigners because they can opt for naturalization in order to work as notaries. It added that Guatemala reserves the exercise of certain rights to its citizens, but it also establishes mechanisms whereby foreign persons can exercise these rights. III. ESTABLISHED FACTS A. Applicable legal framework 3