differentiated treatment. Therefore, even though, throughout the proceedings before the Court, the discussion has focused on the conformity with the Convention of nationality as a requirement to exercise the notarial profession, the evidence in the case file reveals that Mr. Hendrix was in a special situation that could involve an impediment to the exercise of the notarial profession. 68. Consequently, it is first necessary to establish the specific situation of Mr. Hendrix in Guatemala because the alleged violation of the right to equality is based on a supposed discriminatory treatment and, in order to analyze this, it is necessary to determine whether the alleged victim was in a similar factual situation to the other persons who exercise notarial functions in Guatemala, so that it is possible to require identical treatment by the State. In this regard, it should be recalled that, in Guatemala, according to the State, in addition to other requirements, notaries are not only required to be Guatemalan nationals by birth or by naturalization, but must also prove their rootedness or attachment to the country. 69. As noted in the chapter on the facts, Steven Edward Hendrix is a national of the United States of America and lived in Guatemala intermittently for several periods between 1997 and 2006 (supra para. 25 and footnote 22). However, during those years, Mr. Hendrix had neither a temporary or a permanent residence permit in Guatemala, nor has one been recorded to date (supra para. 25 and footnote 23). During his time in Guatemala, Mr. Hendrix worked as a consultant for USAID (supra para. 25 and footnote 25). In other words, Mr. Hendrix was a foreign national who lived intermittently in Guatemala while he performed functions for an agency of the United States government. Currently, Mr. Hendrix resides in Washington D.C., and is employed as an official of the United States government. He has indicated that he would return to Guatemala once he is able to exercise the profession of notary (supra para. 25 and footnote 25). 70. The foregoing reveals that, when applying for registration to exercise notarial functions, Mr. Hendrix was not resident in Guatemala. The Court notes that article 2 of the Notarial Code requires the notary to be domiciled in Guatemala92 (supra para. 21). In other words, there was no information or evidence that allowed Mr. Hendrix’s roots in or attachment to Guatemala to be established and, according to the law, this was a necessary condition to exercise notarial public functions according to the different expert opinions presented by the State93 and the Commission. Thus, in his affidavit, expert witness Roberto P. Saba stated that it was possible to assume that “the requirement of rootedness, attachment or domicile in [a] country constitutes functional criteria [for a restriction] that bears a means-to-an-end relationship with the objective sought by the State,” understanding this objective as an adequate use of the attestation authority.94 Article 32 del Civil Code establishes that: “The domicile is constituted voluntarily by residence in a place with the intention of remaining there.” Article 33 establishes that: “The intention to remain is presumed by continuous residence in a place for one year. This presumption will cease if it is verified that residence is occasional or that residence is established elsewhere.” Meanwhile, article 34 indicates that “If a person lives alternatively or has usual occupations in several places, he shall be considered domiciled in any one of them; but if these occupations have a special relationship with a specific place, this will be the person’s domicile.” Lastly, article 35 indicates that “The persons who does not have a usual residence shall be considered domiciled in the place where he is.” Cf. Civil Code, Decree Law No. 106, articles 32, 33, 34 and 35, supra. 92 Expert witness Gabriel Orellana Rojas stated that: “Guatemalan nationality as an essential requirement to exercise notarial functions is justified based on the need to ensure the notary’s rootedness in or attachment to the country considering, as already mentioned, that the Latin-type notary system entails the exercise of a public function, even though the notary is not a public official. The importance of roots is reinforced by the requirement of being domiciled in the country. The notary’s attachment to the country has special relevance and is also justified in the case of Guatemala because criminal law establishes the possibility of imposing on foreign nationals the accessory penalty of “the expulsion of foreigners from national territory” (article 42 of the Criminal Code); a penalty that corresponds to the accessory penalties of “absolute disqualification” and “special disqualification” for nationals.” Cf. Written expert opinion presented to the Inter-American Court by Gabriel Orellana Rojas, supra, and also provided during the public hearing before this Court, supra. 93 Cf. Expert opinion provided by Roberto P. Saba by affidavit of March 21, 2022 (evidence file, folios 2867 to 2895). 94 22