American Court of Human Rights on the Proposed Amendments to the Naturalisation Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Advisory Opinion of 19 January 1984, the Respondent State argues that no discrimination can be said to “exist if the difference in treatment has a legitimate purpose and if it does not lead to situations which are contrary to justice, to reason or to the nature of things...” The Respondent State further argues that “the principle of equality or non- discrimination does not mean that all differential treatments and distinctions are forbidden because some distinctions are necessary when they are legitimate and justifiable.” 66. The Respondent State submits, therefore, that a State Party to the Charter enjoys “a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment.” Specifically, in relation to the Applicant’s allegation, the Respondent State submits that a: ... reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed by the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania in relation to article 41(7) are legally based on an objective and reasonable justification and the aim sought to be realised therefore, in protection of the United Republic of Tanzania’s sovereignty, it is not in violation of Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. aE 67. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the Charter provides as follows: Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other Opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or any status. 68. The Court recalls that in APDH v Cote d'Ivoire, it accepted that discrimination is “a differentiation of persons or situations on the basis of one 18 or several unlawful