97. In the instant case, the Board of the Guatemalan Lawyers and Notaries Professional Association decided to reject the request to register him as a notary filed by Mr. Hendrix, a United States citizen, who had been awarded a notary degree by the Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, as follows: IT IS AGREED: (a) to request the School of Legal and Social Sciences at the Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala to provide a report on the incorporation of Steven Edward Hendrix and whether it is legally authorized to award him the degree of notary, a profession that, pursuant to our current laws can be exercised exclusively by Guatemalans by birth, so that the Guatemalan Lawyers and Notaries Professional Association is unable to authorize the applicant to exercise this profession, rather only that of the law.142 98. As a result of the impossibility of registering as a notary, Mr. Hendrix filed three remedies, one administrative against the decision of the Board before the Assembly of Professional Associations of Guatemala, and two judicial. The administrative decision merely cited Guatemalan law to ratify the negation: This Assembly of Presidents of Professional Associations, on examining this appeal, finds that the Guatemalan Lawyers and Notaries Professional Association acted in accordance with our laws and that, at no time, were constitutional or conventional principles violated; therefore, it is in order to declare this appeal inadmissible and, as a result, the resolution appealed is confirmed.143 99. After exhausting the administrative mechanisms, Mr. Hendrix resorted to the courts by means of an application for amparo filed by before the Third Chamber of the Appellate Court. The main justification for rejecting the alleged victim’s application was that the authorities challenged had not expropriated or confiscated Mr. Hendrix’s notary degree: [...] the said resolution, which is contested, did not harm the applicant for amparo, because a reading of the resolution does not lead to the conclusion that the awarding of a degree was denied; rather, it was the authorization for the applicant, Steven Edward Hendrix, to exercise the notarial function that was denied because he does not comply with the requirement of being Guatemalan by birth, and for this reason the amparo is plainly inadmissible.144 100. The alleged victim appealed this decision before the Guatemalan Constitutional Court. Mr. Hendrix argued that the aforementioned decisions were unconstitutional because: (i) a difference was made based on nationality, without reasonable justification; (ii) the decisions violated his right to freedom of activity by refusing to register him as a notary; (iii) they violated his right of action because he was not heard by a competent court; (iv) they did not respect the undertaking made with the World Trade Organization in relation to the promotion of a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination based on national origin and, lastly, (v) they violated the right to recognition of the notary degree.145 However, the Constitutional Court reasoned that the arguments could not be admitted because Guatemala had adopted the Latin notarial system: It is concluded that this court is unable to admit the applicant’s thesis supported by the case law precedents he cites, and the international treaties [signed by Guatemala on issues related to world trade] that he lists because the Guatemalan notarial system – of the tendency known as the “Latin notarial system” – differs from the notarial system in his country [United States of America].146 grounds and laws on which the court has based itself to take its decision, so that any indication of arbitrariness can be dismissed, while demonstrating to the parties that they have been heard during the proceedings. Also, it should show that the arguments of the parties have been duly taken into account and that all the evidence has been analyzed. Cf. Transcript of Resolution 3-2001 of February 6, 2001, of the Guatemalan Lawyers and Notaries Professional Association recorded in a note of January 16, 2002, of the Board’s Secretary. 142 143 Cf. Resolution No. 1151-12-02-02 of April 22, 2002, issued by the Assembly of Presidents of Professional Associations of Guatemala. 144 Cf. Judgment of the Third Chamber of the Appellate Court of June 25, 2002. 145 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of April 21, 2004, page 7. 146 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of April 21, 2004, page 11. 25