reason, this Court holds that the Acting Federal Judge did not violate the principle of presumption of innocence in ordering the revocation of nationality in civil proceedings before a judgment was delivered in criminal proceedings, since the facts on which the naturalization application was based could be declared false without having to wait for a final ruling on the crime of making false statements that Ms. Habbal allegedly committed. 101. In relation to the principle of legality, and bearing in mind what was stated above, the Court emphasizes that Article 15 of Decree 3213/84 attributes legal consequences to a different type of crime. The first concerns the use of false information to obtain citizenship, without specifying that the person making the application must be aware that the information is untrue. The Court finds that a civil case was brought against Ms. Habbal on legal grounds. The grounds concerned the false information included in the application for nationality regardless of whether the alleged victim was aware of it or guilty of committing a crime. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the application of Article 15 of Decree 3213/84, without a judgment having been delivered in the criminal proceedings, does not constitute, in the instant case, a violation of the principle of legality. 102. Secondly, this Court recalls that the duty to state reasons is one of the “due guarantees” included in Article 8(1) to safeguard the right to due process. The Court notes that the Acting Federal Judge found that false information was used to obtain nationality, based on the fact that “... The certificate of residence itself was evidently obtained fraudulently, because of the date of entry into the country. Regarding the alleged business that was to be set up, the seller is none other than ADUR, for whom an arrest warrant is pending. In the aforementioned criminal case, it was shown that the owner of the rural property that Raghda [Habbal] was allegedly going to purchase with her husband had never thought of selling it...” Therefore, the Acting Federal Judge held that Ms. Habbal obtained Argentine nationality based on Article 15 of Decree 3213/84, which was the rule cited as the grounds for revoking it. The Court notes that the judge explains the reasons why he reached the conclusions that he did, setting forth the facts, grounds and rules of procedure involved. Therefore, the Court finds that there was no failure to state the reasons under Article 8(1) of the Convention. 103. Thirdly, this Court notes that it is indeed the case that, in his judgment of October 27, 1994, the Acting Federal Judge did not consider whether Ms. Habbal would be rendered stateless due to her renunciation of her nationality of origin. However, from the evidence submitted to this Court it can be seen that, according to the official entry and exit records, Ms. Raghda Habbal entered the Argentine Republic on at least four occasions between 1994 and 1996 as a Syrian and Spanish, as well as an Argentine, national. 132 The Court also notes that, as alleged by the State, since Ms. Habbal’s renunciation of her nationality of origin had no effect in Syria, she never ceased to be a national of that State. 133 Based on these facts, this Court concludes that, in the circumstances of this case, since it is evident that there was no risk of the alleged victim being rendered stateless following the revocation of her Argentine 132 Cf. Record of Migratory Movements of Raghda Habbal, Immigration Information Office, between August 20, 1994 and March 17, 1996 (evidence file, folio 1047); Ministry of the Interior, Public Works and Housing, Antecedentes EN.SA, of October 7, 2016 (evidence file, folio 1059), and passport of Ms. Raghda Habbal issued on June 23, 1994 (evidence file, folios 201 to 211). See Legislative Decree 276 of the Arab Republic of Syria of November 24, 1969, on nationality. Article 10 of the decree reads as follows: “A Syrian Arab forfeits nationality if he acquired a foreign nationality, provided that a decree has been issued, based on his request and upon recommendation by the Minister allowing him to abandon his nationality after having fulfilled all his obligations and duties towards the State.” 133 34