I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND CAUSE OF ACTION 1. The case submitted to the Court. On February 3, 2021, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of “Raghda Habbal and children [v.] the Republic of Argentina” (hereinafter, “the State” or “Argentina”). As the Commission itself explained, the case concerned the arbitrary deprivation of Argentine nationality of Ms. Raghda Habbal, acquired by naturalization, and the revocation of the permanent residence of her three daughters, as well as violations of judicial guarantees that occurred within the framework of the two sets of proceedings involved. The Commission adjudged that the immigration authorities had failed to consider Ms. Habbal’s status as a national and as a citizen, and the possibility of her being rendered stateless by depriving her of Argentine citizenship. The Commission also argued that the immigration proceedings, which culminated in an expulsion order against Ms. Habbal and her daughters, as wells as a preventive detention order, had been carried out in violation of the guarantees of due process and the principle of nondetention of children for immigration-related purposes, and had failed to consider the impact that the expulsion would have on the rights of Ms. Habbal’s son and daughters. The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, the principle of presumption of innocence, personal liberty, the principle of legality, the rights of the child, nationality, freedom of movement and residence, and judicial protection, established in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(b), (c), (d) and (h), 7, 9, 19, 20, 22(1), 22(5), 22(6) and 25(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 2. Proceedings before the Commission. The proceedings before the Commission were as follows: a) Petition. On May 24, 1996, the representatives of the alleged victims (hereinafter also “the representatives”), filed the initial petition with the Commission. b) Admissibility Report. On July 15, 2008, the Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 64/08, in which it informed the parties that the petition was admissible and made itself available for the purpose of finding an amicable solution. c) Report on the Merits. On September 28, 2019, the Commission approved Merits Report No. 140/19 (hereinafter “the Merits Report”), in which it reached a number of conclusions and made several recommendations to the State. d) Notification to the State. The Commission sent the State a communication on December 3, 2019, regarding the Merits Report. It granted the State a period of two months to inform the Commission that it had complied with its recommendations. After being granted four extensions, the State provided details of the actions it had taken to comply with the Commission’s recommendations and asked the Commission not to submit the case to the Court in view of the steps that had been taken. 3. Submission to the Court. On February 3, 2021, the Commission submitted to the Court all the facts and human rights violations involved in the case. 1 It did so, as it noted, because The Commission appointed Commissioner Julissa Mantilla Falcón as its delegate before the Court. It also designated the then-Assistant Executive Secretary Marisol Blanchard, Jorge Humberto Meza Flores and Paula Rangel Garzón, as legal advisors. 1 3