61. According to the State’s argument, the protection of human rights would also be an objective of the restriction based on nationality. In other words, such restriction would be the measure used to seek an increase in legal security which, in turn, would promote the protection of human rights. Under the democratic rule of law, the relationship between legal security and the protection of human rights is undisputed. Moreover, I recognize that the notarial activity contributes to the administration of justice and to the formalization of relations between private individuals, contributing to the cohesion of legal ties and the production of evidence within and outside the judicial sphere. 62. However, I note that, despite demonstrating the link between legal security and the protection of human rights, the State’s argument does not go to the heart of the analysis of suitability, which is the connection between the requirement of Guatemalan nationality and the protection of human rights. Here, it is necessary to recall Barak’s reflection that a society that strives to protect human rights should not permit the use of any general consideration of supposed public interest to justify the limitation of a right.103 On this basis, I understand that the mention of the protection of human rights as the objective of the restrictive measure does not offer convincing elements for the analysis of suitability, because it does not justify how the limitation of the constitutional – and conventional – right to equality and non-discrimination would promote the other rights cited by the State.104 2. Necessity 63. On several occasions, the Inter-American Court has established that it is necessary “to examine the alternatives that exist to achieve the legitimate objective sought and to identify their greater or lesser harmfulness.”105 The assessment of necessity is, thus, eminently comparative.106 Between two measures that are equally suitable to achieve or promote the legitimate objective pursued, it is necessary to determine which of them will have less effect, or no effect whatsoever, on the achievement of other legitimate objectives.107 64. Thus, at this stage of the reasoning proposed by the proportionality test, it is necessary to verify the existence of alternative measures to the criterion of nationality that are suitable to ensure the objective pursued and to preserve the right to equality and nondiscrimination. As I will explain below, Guatemala already has suitable alternative measures that do not violate the right to equality to achieve the general objective cited in its defense, namely: (i) the requirement of domicile, (ii) legal responsibility, and (iii) the obligation of notaries to hand in their protocol when leaving the country. Cf. BARAK, Aharon. Proportionality: constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 265. 103 104 Cf. Answering brief of June 14, 2021, para. 84 and ff. Cf. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 72; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 93; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 196, and Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 74. 105 106 Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 241; Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449, para. 69; Gender Identity, and Equality and Non-Discrimination with regard to Same-Sex Couples. State Obligations in relation to Change of Name, Gender Identity, and Rights deriving from a relationship between Same-Sex Couples (Interpretation and scope of Articles 1(1), 3, 7, 11(2), 13, 17, 18 and 24, in relation to Article 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-24/17 of November 24, 2017. Series A No. 24, para. 81, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 126. Cf. ALEXY, Robert. Teoría de los derechos fundamentales. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, 1993, p. 113. 107 17