discrimination in access to employment by the State constituted a violation of the right to work.161 109. Therefore, the sphere of protection of Article 26 of the Convention, as it has been interpreted by the Inter-American Court, protects the individual not only against arbitrary removal (job stability), but also against the denial of access to a job based on discriminatory barriers. 110. In the preceding sections, it has been demonstrated not only that (i) Mr. Hendrix was deprived of obtaining the job he sought owing to the application of a discriminatory condition, but also (ii) he did not enjoy adequate judicial protection to redress the harm to his rights. Thes two circumstances analyzed based on the Inter-American Court’s standards lead, per se, to the conclusion that the petitioner was arbitrarily prevented from enjoying his right to work based on discriminatory reasons in violation of Article 26 of the Convention. 111. Thus, in the instant case, it can be seen that the foreign nationality of Mr. Hendrix placed him at a disadvantage. Access to a career is an advantage because jobs are opportunities not only to obtain an income, but also for self-fulfillment, which, in turn, is an evident component of the notion of a decent life. However, as it is regulated in Guatemala, not everyone can exercise the notarial career. In this context, guaranteeing equal opportunities of access to employment is a necessary condition to avoid discriminatory treatment.162 112. According to the opinion provided by expert witness Gabriel Orellana Rojas during the public hearing, in Guatemala most lawyers are also notaries and, therefore, those who do not exercise notarial activities are at a clear disadvantage in relation to the others.163 In this case, one of the problems encountered refers to whether or not non-arbitrary reasons existed to support the validity of the nationality requirement in the procedure for access to the notarial career in Guatemala. 113. In its final arguments, Guatemala asserted that the “nationality” requirement for the notarial practice was common among Latin American countries. It added that this requirement was not exclusive to Guatemala, but had been adopted by several countries of the Americas.164 Accordingly, it indicated that there was “a general, uniform and harmonious practice that has existed over time in relation to the nationality requirement for the exercise of the notarial function and, therefore, it complied with one of the elements for recognition of an international custom.”165 114. However, exercise of the functions of notary and lawyer is incompatible in many Latin American countries that also establish nationality as an essential requirement for the exercise of the notarial profession. This is a sign that, in those countries, the objectives of the notarial profession and the law are more significantly different that in Guatemala: while the former seeks to be fully impartial in the name of legal security and the interests of the State (although in weak sense), the latter seeks to harmonize the interests of society with private interests. 115. Thus, the references to comparative law are, more than sources of inspiration, an interpretive necessity. However, comparative analyses must be aware of certain methodological risks; especially that of the irrelevance of suggested relationships and the 161 Cf. Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 453, para. 79. 162 For a more direct defense of the relationship between non-discrimination and equal opportunities, cf. SEGALL, Shlomi, ¿What’s so Bad about Discrimination? Utilitas, v. 24, n. 1, p. 82-100, 2012. 163 Cf. Expert opinion provided by Gabriel Orellana Rojas during the public hearing held on March 28, 2022. 164 Cf. The State’s brief with final arguments of April 28, 2022, para. 112. 165 Cf. The State’s brief with final arguments of April 28, 2022, para. 127. 28