According to Guatemalan constitutional jurisprudence, it is evident that the principle of equality before the law is not violated if different provisions are applied to different situations, provided that such differences are reasonable. In the case in question, and based on the extensive legal doctrine set forth, the requirement imposed by the legislator on the notarial function is not only reasonable, but easily understandable and in keeping with notarial principles. Most countries treat foreigners in a different way to nationals; thus, a foreigner needs work permits and a national does not, and a foreigner cannot vote or be elected, or occupy public office. In Guatemala, for example, legal persons are restricted from engaging in certain commercial activities if they do not have Guatemalan nationality. […] Based on the said doctrine, it is concluded that, in Guatemala, notaries are public officials because they exercise their competence delegated by the State of Guatemala. Therefore, Guatemalan notaries are independent public officials who do not obtain their income from the State, but rather from private individuals. The nationality requirement imposed by Guatemalan law is not arbitrary; it is rooted in a long tradition of the Latin notary system, which is different in each country. However, Mexico, Argentina and Spain, among others, require the condition of nationality in order to exercise the notarial profession. The Spanish Notarial Law clearly indicates: “Notaries are public officials” and, in one article, it establishes the requirement that they “be Spanish in order to exercise attestation authority.” Therefore, the requirement that, in Guatemala, notaries must be Guatemalan in order to exercise the notarial profession is not alien to the context of the Latin notarial system and, as the doctrine cited explains, it is a requirement based on solid historical and legal grounds, and it is perfectly legitimate for the State to establish the requirements for the exercise of the notarial function. VI MERITS 38. This case relates to the alleged international responsibility of the State with regard to the nationality requirement established in the Notarial Code of Guatemala in order to exercise the profession of notary (supra para. 21). It is claimed that, as a foreign national who has not acquired Guatemalan nationality by naturalization, the alleged victim was not authorized to exercise the notarial profession. 39. To decide the merits of the dispute, the Court will analyze whether Mr. Hendrix complied with the requirements established in the laws of Guatemala to be authorized to exercise as a notary. Subsequently, it will refer to the alleged violation of the rights to judicial protection, nationality, work, and property. VI-1 RIGHT TO EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS NOT TO DISCRIMINATE AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS47 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 40. The Commission argued that, even though the alleged victim had studied law and the notarial profession in Guatemala, pursuant to administrative and judicial decisions he was prevented from exercising notarial functions based on article 2(1) of the Notarial Code, which requires notaries to be Guatemalan nationals. It asserted that, for a restriction and a difference in treatment imposed on the exercise of the right to exercise a profession based “on national origin” to be in keeping with the Convention, it must be established by law and comply with the proportionality test; namely, have a legitimate objective, and be suitable, necessary and strictly proportionate. In this regard, it considered that the objectives indicated by the State, either “to protect sovereignty” or the “principle of accountability” were legitimate, and the limitation complied with the principle of legality. However, it argued that it did not comply with the principles of suitability and necessity, and considered that the State had not provided sufficient reasons to justify that this prohibition constituted a restriction that met the standards established by the American Convention. 47 Articles 1(1), 2 and 24 of the American Convention. 12