lines of arguments, the State has not provided sufficient evidence to establish the causal nexus between the measure adopted and the suitable objective. Therefore, it did not prove satisfactorily the instrumentality of the measure in relation to the objective. 57. I emphasize this point because, in theory, in a different situation and based on the distinctive criterion of nationality, the State could prove that a causal nexus existed between the measure of disqualification and the legitimate objective of protecting sovereignty, as occurs, for example, in the context of public functions that, owing to their purpose, require a special concept of national or community loyalty. This is the case, for example, of the nationality requirement to form part of the diplomatic corps or to exercise military command functions. Therefore, as the State has not complied adequately with its duty to provide specific arguments, I agree with the understanding of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights98 that the absence of arguments that explain the relationship between the protection of State sovereignty and the prohibition of notaries in Guatemalan having a foreign nationality precludes a precise understanding of the objective sought by the State using the means at its disposal,99 which results in non-compliance with the requirement. 58. I note that, at times, the State’s arguments concerning sovereignty are similar to the argument concerning another objective: the protection of national security. Evidently, restricting the nationality of notaries is not suitable for that purpose because the exercise of the notarial profession is not an appropriate means to respond to such threats. Possible failures by notaries to exercise their functions satisfactorily represent, at most, isolated or local offenses against law and order. Moreover, it is always necessary to take great care not to abuse this line of arguments which, in this case, could lead to a stereotyped characterization of the immigrant as, per se, a threat to national sovereignty and security. 59. Therefore, non-nationality cannot result in an individual being suspected of, or labelled as having presumed hostility towards a specific national community, even though this stereotype is established in a legal measure. Ultimately, the principle of equality requires that, faced with the universality of human rights, there is an authentic right to be different, especially in relation to those traits that make up an individual’s identity and personality. The State’s reasons – construed from a style that emulates the former raison d’état100 – should, in this regard, be subject to strict and severe scrutiny in relation to the treaty-based principle of equality, always exercised on an empirical basis, as I have mentioned in another part of this opinion. 60. Second, it is necessary to examine whether nationality as a condition for access to the notarial profession is suitable to guarantee legal security, which refers to the requirement of rootedness. The State argued that a person’s nationality is an indicator of his roots in and attachment to the country, and this would facilitate accountability in his notarial activities and possible legal responsibility for his acts in case of improper exercise of his functions or bad faith.101 The State argued that the requirement of Guatemalan nationality eliminated the risk of a non-national notary committing an offense by making unlawful use of good faith and fleeing to his country of origin, making it almost impossible to request his extradition and culminating in impunity.102 98 Cf. IACHR. Merits Report 194/20, paras. 51 and 52. Cf. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 317. 99 Cf. STOLLEIS, Michael. “La Idea del Estado Soberano.” In: La textura histórica de las formas políticas. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2011, p. 32. 100 101 Cf. The State’s brief with final arguments of April 28, 2022, para. 166. “If a notary should commit an offense owing to the unlawful use of his attestation authority, the State of Guatemala can guarantee that the professional in question responds personally before the courts and makes integral reparation to the victims.” Cf. The State’s brief with final arguments of April 28, 2022, para. 167. 102 16