Article 17. For tax-related purposes, the provision of services consists in all those taxable operations that do not consist in the transfer of the ownership or movable tangible property, indicating among them the following: […] (n) The services provided by the free exercise of university professions and of public accounting or independent, non-subordinate services provided by those who personally exercise professions or occupations that may or may not require a degree or license to exercise them, either natural persons or companies legally constituted by them. For the effects of this law, the notarial function shall be considered a liberal profession. Honduras177 ARTICLE 53. Non-contentious acts established in the Code of Civil Procedure and other laws may be examined, processed and resolved by notaries following the express and unanimous consent of the interested parties. The notary is prohibited from intervening in non-contentious matters when he has taken part in these as a lawyer or has participated in the authorization of the act or contract in question. ARTICLE 92. It shall correspond solely to the interested parties to appoint the notary when they have to pay the fees for the notarial acts. No natural or legal person may establish the exclusivity of a notary or special rates for fees. 120. In my opinion, this case constitutes a violation of Mr. Hendrix’s right to work owing to the specificities of the notarial function in Guatemala. Based on the proportionality test, I consider that the impediment to the exercise of the profession owing to national origin prevented the alleged victim from being able to exercise the notarial function in a discriminatory context in relation to opportunities. Excluding the participation of nonnationals in private or public functions should only be justified as an exceptional mechanism. Consequently, I consider that the implementation of article 2(1) of the Notarial Code, which prevents non-nationals from exercising the profession of notary, is incompatible with the American Convention. VI. Conclusion and final considerations 121. The judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court in this case finds that the State was not responsible for the violation of the right to equality established in Article 24 of the Convention, in relation to its Articles 1(1) and 2.178 Neither does it consider the State responsible for violating the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25(1) in light of Article 1(1) of the Convention.179 In addition, the judgment does not address the possibility that the right to work guaranteed by Article 26 of the Convention may have been violated. For the reasons described throughout this opinion, I disagree with the majority position on these three issues. 122. As I have tried to point out, when applying the criterion of domicile to the detriment of the analysis of the standard applied by the State – nationality – the Court not only strayed from the factual framework delimited for the case, but also failed to examine the nationality requirement in light of the Convention, to reaffirm the exceptional nature of its adoption and, consequently, to determine a measure of reparation leading to the amendment of article 2(1) of the Notarial Code. 123. Finally, I recall that the effects of the Court’s judgments exceed the force of res judicata between the parties established in Article 68(1) of the Convention. The control of Cf. Decree 353/2005 (Honduras). Available at: https://www.notarioshonduras.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/01/Codigo-del-Notariado.pdf. Accessed: May 4, 2023. 177 178 Cf. Judgment, first operative paragraph. 179 Cf. Judgment, second operative paragraph. 31