Constitutional Chamber understood that “suitability, and moral and ethical character – rather than nationality – should therefore be some of the valid parameters that a professional association can take into account when incorporating professionals.”155 Thus, the Costa Rican Supreme Court of Justice concluded that: The law may establish it in this way, but the reasons to proceed thus should be plainly logical and reasonable: it cannot simply be founded on the fact that this is what the law requires. In other words, the nature of the function – public or private – does not constitute, alone and a priori, sufficient reason to regulate a different legal treatment, especially when it is possible to observe, as in the case of notaries, that for the exercise of this function, which is highly technical, all that can reasonably be required is technical or professional competence – which is assumed by the requirement that the notary must be a lawyer, a condition that is not excluded to a foreign national – and ethical and moral suitability – qualities that are not satisfied only by those who have a specific nationality. If the foreign national who is a lawyer incorporated in the respective professional association is able to exercise his profession in Costa Rica, there is evidently insufficient reason to explain why he cannot exercise the notarial function. 106. Thus, I note that the domestic courts did not examine the restrictive measure using the proportionality test. As argued in the preceding point, this test, established by several national constitutional courts, and by the international courts of human rights, reveals itself to be an effective analytical parameter to combat arbitrary restrictions of rights.156 By failing to provide comprehensive arguments regarding the proportionality of the requirement of Guatemalan nationality for professional registration – as provided by the Costa Rican court – the judicial review conducted by the Guatemalan Constitutional Court failed to address, even minimally, the impact of the severe restriction imposed on the right to equality and non-discrimination in this case, culminating in a violation of Article 25 of the Convention. V. Violation of Article 26 of the Convention: Right to work 107. The structure of the Inter-American Court’s case law on the content of the right to work is closely related to the guarantees of equality and non-discrimination in all domains: from access to and permanence in employment to the enjoyment of decent and equal working conditions. As the Court has stated and reiterated in its most recent precedents, States have the duty to protect the individual against arbitrary or unlawful interference in the enjoyment of his work-related guarantees.157 In its judgments, the Court has also recalled that labor protection additionally includes the right of individuals to exercise the functions that they freely choose.158 108. Thus, in Pavez Pavez v. Chile (2022), the Court addressed the specific repercussions of discriminatory treatment with regard to the right to work, emphasizing that States are responsible for guaranteeing its realization without discrimination and with equal opportunities.159 More recently, in Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica (2022), the Court underlined that any measure based on discriminatory motives that prevented access to the labor market violated this right.160 On that occasion, when examining the specific implications of the right to work, the Inter-American Court considered that the act of direct 155 Constitutional Chamber, Costa Rica. Resolution No. 03300-2004. Cf. NEWTON, Michael; MAY, Larry. Proportionality in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, p. 216 and ss. 156 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 130. Similarly, and more recently, Mina Cuero 132-134, Benites 112114, Nissen 102 -103, and Aguinaga 99. 157 158 For example, Mina Cuero, 131, Benites 135, Aguinaga 98. Cf. Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449, paras. 89, 90 and 136. 159 Cf. Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 453, para. 60. 160 27