41 82. As has been recognized in international jurisprudence, the absence of one party at any state of the case does not affect the validity of the judgment75, so that, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Convention, Peru’s obligation to comply with the decision of this Court in the instant case is in force76. X VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 20 (RIGHT TO NATIONALITY) The Commission’s arguments 83. With regard to Article 20 of the Convention, The Commission argues that: a) in “Supreme Resolution” No. 0649-RE, of November 27, 1984, the President of Peru resolved: a) to grant Peruvian nationality to Mr. Ivcher; b) to record this in the respective register; and c) to issue him the corresponding nationality title, once he had renounced his original nationality in a public instrument; b) on December 6, 1984, Mr. Ivcher Bronstein renounced his Israeli nationality in a document drawn up before a public notary and, the following day, after having officially received the document with the renunciation of Israeli nationality, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Peru issued him the nationality title, which was also signed by the Minister Counselor Director of Nationalization and the Deputy Minister and Secretary General; c) according to Articles 20 and 29(b) of the American Convention and articles 2(21) and 53 of Peru’s Constitution, no authority has the power to deprive a Peruvian of nationality. According to the domestic law of Peru, Peruvian nationality may only be lost by a voluntary act of express renouncement. Therefore, any procedure that deprives a Peruvian citizen of his nationality is arbitrary; d) Mr. Ivcher Bronstein never renounced his Peruvian nationality, but his nationality title was revoked and, in consequence, he was deprived of the administration of Channel 2 and all his fundamental rights as a Peruvian citizen; 75 Cf. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 23, para. 27. See also, Cf., inter alia, Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 7, para. 12; Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 9, para. 17; Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 257, para. 15; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 7, para. 15; and United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 18, para. 33. 76 Cf. Constitutional Court case, supra note 8; para. 62.