35 it the nomen iuris of treason, a common but exceptionally serious crime that is universally condemned in all international fora. The active agent of this crime could be anyone, whatever his nationality, so long as it is committed on Peruvian soil”; d) under Article 78 of the Code of Military Justice, the crime of treason can be committed by persons who are Peruvian citizens –whether by birth or by naturalization- or by anyone subject to Peruvian law. The latter group refers to “those persons who enjoy the protection of Peruvian laws [… in other words] anyone who is on national soil, whether he be Peruvian or foreign,” and can even include illegal aliens, such as the persons in this case; e) during the course of the domestic criminal proceedings, none of the attorneys representing the Chilean nationals proved that they were aliens; f) because the crimes in this case were “crimes of lese humanité committed on [Peruvian] soil” and against the State and its civilian and military population, those responsible must be prosecuted in accordance with domestic criminal law; to do otherwise would be to “violate the principle of the sovereignty and independence of States”; g) under the Code of Military Justice, Decree-Law No. 25,659, and the Penal Code, “no distinction is made between Peruvian and foreign perpetrators.” Therefore, the right recognized in Article 20 of the Convention and Article 15 of the Universal Declaration has not been violated, since “the nationality of [the alleged victims] in no way influenced their trial and the sentence imposed.” 99. This Court has defined nationality as “the political and legal bond that links a person to a given state and binds him to it with ties of allegiance and loyalty, entitling him to diplomatic protection from that state.” If an alien acquires this link to a given state, it is understood that he has satisfied the conditions that the State sets to ensure that an effective link exists between the candidate for citizenship and the system of values and interests of the society with which he seeks to fully associate himself; it is natural, then, that the “conditions and procedures for its acquisition should be governed primarily by the domestic laws of that state.”82 100. This Court has also held that the right to nationality recognized in Article 20 has two aspects: first, it “provides the individual with a minimal measure of legal protection in international relations through the link his nationality establishes between him and the state in question; and second, the protection therein accorded the individual against the arbitrary deprivation of his nationality, without which he would be deprived for all practice purposes of all of his political rights as well as of those civil rights that are tied to the nationality of the individual.”83 82. Cf. Proposed amendments to the naturalization provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, paras. 35-36; see also Nottebohm Case (second phase), Judgment of April 6, 1955, I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 24. 83. Proposed amendments to the naturalization provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, supra note 82, para. 34.