33 given the Court’s finding in the judgment on preliminary objections in the instant case.81 94. At the public hearing the Court held on the merits of the instant case, the State argued that in Mr. Astorga Valdez’ case, local remedies had not been exhausted since the original petition was filed with the Commission on January 28, 1994, but his conviction did not come until later that year, in May. It further argued that Mr. Astorga Valdez’ case was not joined to that original petition until even later that year, in November. In other words, “more than six months passed between the date of the final ruling and the date of the submission requesting joinder of Mr. Astorga’s case to the original petition.” 95. The Court notes that the exhaustion of local remedies and the request to include Mr. Astorga Valdez in the petition originally presented to the Inter-American Commission were issues decided in the judgment on preliminary objections and therefore need not be revisited at this phase of the proceedings. VIII ON ARTICLE 20 (RIGHT TO NATIONALITY) 96. Article 20 of the Convention provides the following: 1. Every person has the right to a nationality. 2. Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality. 3. it. 97. 81. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or of the right to change The Commission’s arguments were as follows: a) Peru violated the right to nationality recognized in Article 20 of the Convention because it did “not have the right to try and convict the four Chilean citizens for the crime of treason.” Following the principle of the territoriality of criminal law, the State applied Decree-Law No. 25,659, which makes no distinction for nationals and aliens; b) In convicting the four Chilean citizens, the State arbitrarily “imposed on them and attempted to create within them an artificial bond of allegiance and loyalty to Peru”; in other words, a relationship with that country or nation. For the State to require allegiance and loyalty from these persons, they would first have to have voluntarily opted to acquire Peruvian nationality and, as a consequence, renounce their Chilean nationality; c) the crime of treason should be classified among crimes “against the external security of the Nation” that attack the sovereignty, independence, security or honor of the Nation [...] to further the Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, supra note 2.