foreigners, as a class, are not capable of wielding the authority to attest to documents that is delegated to notaries under Guatemalan law, or that doing so would be detrimental to national sovereignty. 70. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the provision established in article 2(1) of the Code of the Notary Profession of Guatemala, requiring an individual be a native Guatemalan to exercise the notary profession, as well as its application in this specific case and the subsequent restriction and differentiated treatment of the alleged victim that prevented him from registering as a notary in Guatemala, which is a requirement to exercise this profession, were arbitrary, and thus violated the principle of equal protection and nondiscrimination established in Article 24 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. The Commission notes that this is separate from the regulations and requirements that must be met for a foreigner to be able to live in the country and exercise a profession. B. The right to judicial protection40 71. The IACHR recalls that States have a general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to people who allege having been victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which should be in accordance with the rules of legal due process (Article 8(1)). For a remedy to exist, it is not enough for it to be provided for by law; rather, it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.41 72. In this case, the IACHR notes that on November 22, 2000, the alleged victim filed a request to register as an attorney and notary with the Association of Lawyers and Notaries of Guatemala. However, he was only registered as a lawyer, based on subparagraph 1 of article 2 of the Code of the Notary Profession, which requires an individual be a native Guatemalan to exercise the notary profession. The alleged victim filed an appeal with the Assembly of Presidents of the Professional Associations of Guatemala, which denied his appeal on April 22, 2002, based on the same grounds. 73. Later, the alleged victim filed a writ of amparo before the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals against that decision described in the above paragraph, which was denied on June 25, 2002, with the reiteration that one needed to be a native Guatemalan to exercise the notary profession. Lastly, the alleged victim filed an amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court, which admitted it, but with the condition that the alleged victim must become a Guatemalan citizen. 74. The Commission takes note that the judicial authorities did not perform an analysis of reasonability and proportionality of the limitation imposed on the alleged victim and that was established in the Guatemalan Code of the Notary Profession. The Commission thus finds that the alleged victim did not have an effective remedy to protect his right to equal protection and nondiscrimination. 75. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the Guatemalan State is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial protection established in Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Steven Edward Hendrix. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Article 25(1) of the American Convention establishes that everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 41 Inter-American Court, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.). Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. Para. 125; Inter-American Court, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125. Para. 61; Inter-American Court, Case of the “Five Pensioners.” Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98. Para. 136. 40 16