an arbitrary violation of the right of the victims to nationality. According to the Complainant, the discriminatory acts reported above led to the denial of the right to nationality, and in many instances to statelessness or to the risk of statelessness, thus preventing the recognition of the legal status of thousands of Ivorians. The Complainant establishes the right of the Dioula population to Ivorian nationality based on history. Thus, he argues that as a result of artificial borders splitting homogeneous cultural groups and regrouping different peoples within several independent States, the post-independent borders have undermined the natural process of creating nation States and caused a heterogeneity which has given vent to ethnocentrism. The Complainant asserts that this historical foundation of the right to nationality is confirmed by the accounts of the victims interviewed of which 78 percent were born in Côte d’Ivoire, with parents and grand-parents themselves born in Côte d’Ivoire, the only country they have ever known, the only country with which they have ever had socio-political links and where all the members of their families live. 63. The Complainant asserts that on violation of the right to nationality according to the provisions of Article 5 of the Charter, the law is vague, its implementation discriminatory and the procedure for acquiring nationality inequitable. On the vagueness of the law, the Complainant affirms that the nationality Code fails to clarify two terms whose definition is crucial to ensure an equitable and transparent implementation: « Ivorian » and « foreigner». The Complainant asserts that at independence, there were no Ivorian citizens in Côte d’Ivoire, just as it pertained in several other African States. In Côte d’Ivoire, the authorities gave the regular residents a timeline of one year to acquire the nationality, a deadline which many residents could not comply with nor deemed it necessary to comply with. The myth was therefore perpetuated, from generation to generation, that Ivorian nationality was only given before independence or in the period after independence. 64. On the allegation of denial of nationality as a result of the inequitable implementation of the law, the Complainant refers to the lack of standardized processes and motivation for follow-up of applications submitted and the unpredictability of the procedure for acquiring nationality. The Complainant stresses that whereas the Ivorian law on nationality is governed by the principle of jus sanguinis – to have at least one Ivorian parent – the law in question does not set any concrete standard to determine the validity of the nationality of parents. Furthermore, according to the evidence provided by witnesses, in case the nationality documents of their parents filed alongside the application for nationality or naturalization did not disappear from the administrative processes, they were simply rejected without any reason. The attempts to renew previously acquired documents ended the same way. 16