46 221. The Court has written that the right to nationality has a dual aspect: [t]he right to a nationality provides the individual with a minimum 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 practical purposes of all his 193 political rights as well as of those civil rights that are tied to the nationality of the individual. 222. The Court also wrote that the right to nationality, as the political and legal bond that 194 connects a person to a specific State, allows the individual to acquire and exercise rights and is a 195 fundamental, non-derogable right recognized in the American Convention. Thus, the right to nationality carries with it a corresponding obligation incumbent upon the State with which that bond is established, which is to provide the individual with a minimal measure of legal protection in international relations, and the obligation to protect the individual against arbitrary deprivation of his nationality, without which he would be deprived for all practical purposes of all his political rights as well as of those civil rights that are 196 tied to the individual’s nationality. Specific protections must be accorded to children; for example, they cannot be arbitrarily separated from their families or unlawfully transferred to another State and not 197 returned. 223. The Court has also held that a State still has the authority to determine who its nationals are. However, the discretion with which it exercises that authority is constantly being narrowed as international law evolves, all in order to better protect the individual from the arbitrary excesses of States. Thus, at the current stage of development of international human rights law, that power of the State is limited by, on the one hand, its obligation to provide individuals with the equal and effective protection of the law, without discrimination, and, on the other hand, its duty to prevent, avoid and reduce 198 statelessness. 224. The General Assembly of the Organization of American States noted that the “recognition of the identity of persons is one of the means through which observance of the rights to legal personhood, a name, a nationality, civil registration, and family relationships is facilitated, among other rights recognized in international instruments, such as the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on Human Rights.” It also observed that “non-recognition of identity can mean that a person has no legal proof of his or her existence, which makes it difficult to exercise fully his or her civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.” The Inter-American Juridical Committee 193 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 74, paragraph 87; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C N° 52, paragraph 100; Proposed Amendment to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, paragraph 34. 194 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, paragraph 137. 195 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, paragraph 136; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paragraph 119; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paragraph 244. 196 I/A Court H.R., Proposed Amendment to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, paragraph 34; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30,1999. Series C No. 52, paragraph 100, I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, paragraph 139. 197 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 11, and Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children, Article 4. I/A Court H.R., Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, paragraph 128. 198 See, inter alia, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Article 1(1); International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Article 29, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 7(12), and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 24(3).