77. Considering all these elements, it is evident that the guarantee of the proper exercise of the notarial profession does not depend on the national origin of the professional and is not increased by this. As expert witness Roberto P. Saba argued: “it is possible that Guatemalan nationals do not have roots, ties or domicile in Guatemala, or are unable to perform their function, or their performance is not satisfactory, and that Guatemalan non-nationals have roots, ties or domicile in Guatemala, exercise their functions excellently, and their performance is faultless.”127 78. Considering that the laws of Guatemala establish suitable alternative mechanisms to ensure the proper exercise of the notarial function that uphold the objectives of protection of sovereignty and legal certainty and security without requiring a distinction between nationals and non-nationals who aspire to exercise the notary profession, it should be concluded that the requirement of Guatemalan nationality does not meet the criterion of necessity and, therefore, violates the right to equality and non-discrimination. However, I will now examine the last category of the proportionality test, in order to exhaust the aspects that make the nationality requirement disproportionate. 3. Strict proportionality 79. Regarding this last category of the test, the Court has alleged that “[a]t this stage of the analysis, whether the restriction is strictly proportionate must be considered so that the sacrifice inherent in such restriction is not exaggerated or disproportionate to the advantages obtained through such limitation,”128 and that “[t]o weigh this up, it is necessary to analyze: (i) the level of impact on one of the rights in question, determining whether the intensity of this impact was serious, intermediate, or moderate; (ii) the importance of satisfying the opposing right, and (iii) whether the satisfaction of that right justified the restriction of the other one.”129 80. In this regard, I propose a hypothetical abstraction of non-compliance with the two previous stages of the test in order to evaluate, in greater detail, the strict proportionality in relation to the first criterion mentioned in the precedent cited in the preceding paragraph; that is, the level of impact on the right to equality and non-discrimination. 81. According to the arguments submitted by the State, there is no absolute impediment to the exercise of the notarial function by non-nationals, insofar as the law allows them to become naturalized, and naturalized Guatemalans meet the nationality requirement stipulated in article 2 of the Notarial Code. In Guatemala, as a general rule, the acquisition of Guatemalan nationality requires renouncing the original nationality, according to article 146 of the Constitution and article 37 of the Nationality Law. Let me recall that the right to equality and non-discrimination is essential for the guarantee of other human rights and that there is an inextricable relationship between an individual’s nationality and identity. Therefore, to condition the exercise of a profession to the renunciation of the nationality of origin constitutes a significant sacrifice not only of the right to equality and non-discrimination, but also of the right to identity. the notary, when he is not domiciled in the department of Guatemala, and the latter shall forward it to the General Archive of Protocols within eight days. The written notice shall indicate the name and address of the notary with whom the protocol has been deposited.” 127 Cf. Expert opinion of Roberto P. Saba of March 21, 2022, p. 20. Cf. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 79; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 93; Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 83, and Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 98. See also, Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute “ v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 228. 128 Cf. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 80. 129 21