65. As argued extensively by the State, the expert witness who testified during the hearing, and the Guatemalan Institute of Notarial Law, the attachment between the person exercising the notarial function in Guatemala and the Guatemalan State represented by rootedness is composed of two elements: domicile and nationality.108 However, it is unclear what additional guarantees nationality alone would provide; in other words, what aspects of the achievement of the objectives sought are not sufficient protected by the criterion of domicile, per se. This question is relevant insofar as the requirement of domicile is an adequate alternative means of achieving the alleged objectives and does not impair the principle of equality between nationals and non-nationals protected by the Convention. 66. The domicile is defined by the Guatemalan Civil Code as the voluntary establishment of residence with the intention of permanence and the place recognized by the law for the exercise of rights and fulfillment of obligations.109 By establishing his domicile, the individual – irrespective of his nationality – creates an attachment to the State, which facilitates monitoring his actions and holding him accountable for them. 67. In view of the fact that one of the main concerns expressed by the State focused on the risk that the notary would improperly abandon the country without handing in his protocol to the competent authorities, and that his misconduct would go unpunished, it is worth pointing out that article 262 of the Guatemalan Code of Criminal Procedure110 establishes the circumstances that should be considered to assess the risk of flight. Among such circumstances, the following are expressly listed: roots and domicile in the country and also family ties, and business and work relations. However, it does not expressly mention nationality, which leads us to conclude that the requirement of domicile responds satisfactorily to the needs for State control of migratory movements and efforts to prevent flight. 68. If neutral measures exist in relation to the discrimination criterion in question, it is not justified to use others based on nationality. Indeed, if it were plausible that the nationality of a Guatemalan notary in some way guaranteed the State’s control of his activity and, therefore, the achievement of the objective of legal certainty and security, based on a strict scrutiny, the State would have to prove that it is the only instrument that is specifically useful for overseeing the actions of notaries effectively. The verification of domicile, for example, would appear to be sufficient to guarantee the legal security sought, as well as to ensure the localization of the notary in the case of civil or criminal responsibility. However, in cases in which a suspect distinction is cited, it is for the State to make an analytical comparison of the different measures to achieve the objective sought. It is this action that reveals and translates the essence of the assessment of necessity made at the second stage of the proportionality test. 69. In addition, expanding the analysis from the Guatemalan national sphere to the international standards for the function established in the Fundamental Principles of the Latin-type Notarial System of the International Union of Notaries (UINL), it can be seen that the most recent version, adopted in 2005, does not establish nationality as a requirement for the exercise of notarial activities. In order to oversee the technical and ethical quality of the notarial activity, the Union establishes the requirement of obtaining 108 Cf. Judgment, paras. 48-52. Cf. Civil Code of Guatemala. Article 32. “The domicile is constituted voluntarily by residence in a place with the intention of remaining there.” 109 110 Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure of Guatemala, Article 262. (Risk of flight). “To decide whether there is a risk of flight, special consideration shall be given to the following circumstances: (i) Rootedness or attachment to the country determined by domicile, usual residence, seat of the family, business or work, and facilities to abandon the country definitively or to remain hidden […].” 18