that at independence on 7 August 1960, there was nothing like Ivorian nationality and that all were French subjects. The Commission considers that the consequence should be that no resident born before independence can lay claim to Ivorian nationality. If that is the case, then by extension and by implementing the provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of the nationality Code, the Ivorian child referred to would not have inherited a nationality by blood relations as a result of lack of existence of the « Ivorian origin». To proceed by such reasoning, the non existence of Ivorian nationality of origin through the fault of the law instituting it would have logically been transmitted from generations to generations for all the inhabitants of Côte d’Ivoire. The Commission is of the opinion that it would simply be a legal absurdity. Such a legal haziness violates the provisions of Article 5 of the African Charter as it renders it impossible to determine precisely the criteria for the acquisition of the legal status of a « national » or a « foreigner ». 119. At this stage, it should be noted that in order to conclude that the right of the Dioulas to nationality has been violated, we should assess the extent to which the application of the law has caused them harm. In this regard, the Commission notes that the vagueness of the law has conferred all discretionary powers to grant nationality on the relevant authorities. The reported facts which were sufficiently proven and well documented by the complainant are not challenged by the Respondent State. In practice, the « Dioulas » are refused nationality through an extremely discretionary application of the law, at least where its vagueness is concerned. This manifested in the refusal by the relevant authorities to issue persons from the « Dioula » ethnic group or persons considered as such with documents attesting to recognition of Ivorian legal status by the Ivorian State. Thus, whereas persons of the other ethnic groups who are perceived as Ivorians « of origin » obtained it systematically and without hindrances, documents like birth certificates and the national identity cards were not issued to Dioulas. 120. In certain cases, documents previously obtained were challenged or seized for good. Analyses and statements attached to the docket by the Complainant prove indisputably that this obstruction to the access to nationality documents was, and continues to be, based on a wrongful interpretation of the provisions of the nationality code, particularly the vagueness of the said provisions. The result of this is that several thousands of persons born in Côte d’Ivoire to persons who were themselves born in Côte d’Ivoire, and who have always lived there, find themselves in a situation of statelessness. Such a situation immediately leads to a violation of their right to the recognition of their legal status guaranteed by Article 5 of the Charter. 35