d’Ivoire to foreign parents acquired nationality through a simple declaration. In 1972, the said provisions were repealed. They were only reintroduced in 2013 through the Law to which reference has been made above. However, the relevance and effectiveness of their reintroduction are being challenged by the Complainant. Consequently, it is proper to subject them to evaluation. As it has indicated above, the Commission notes that the right to nationality as a recognition and manifestation of legal status must be established on the basis of the obligation of a State to recognize as its nationals all persons who have not acquired or cannot acquire another nationality and who, if the nationality is not granted, would be stateless. The Parties agree that at the very least, victims of the second category find themselves in this situation. 134. However, fundamental clarifications should be made because the conclusions on points of law will depend on the nature and scope of remedies and reparations to be prescribed. In this regard, the Commission notes that the timeframes for the implementation of successive reforms, including those of 2013, have shown their limits. By way of illustration, and as has been recalled above, it is the nullity of the extremely short and unrealistic timeframe of one year which has made it impossible to declare nationality and paved the way for the numerous abuses suffered by victims. Successive Governments of the Respondent State have recognized the problem of nationality as the main factor behind the socio-political crisis and armed conflict which Côte d’Ivoire has experienced from 2002 in particular. 135. Furthermore, although it is true that the lack of use of the simple declaration procedure granted under the 1961 Code is imputable to victims, the ineffectiveness of the set timeframes can be blamed on the successive administrations of the Respondent State. Better still, the behavior and practice of the Governments of the Respondent State, particularly from 1961 to 1993, are unambiguous with regard to the recognition of certain privileges relating to nationality for second generation Dioulas and foreigners. Thus, the authorities have, through various successive laws since independence, recognized for these persons the right to acquire nationality automatically through the simple declaration procedure instead of acquisition by naturalization. In such a context, and particularly as a result of the « proimmigration » policy implemented by Côte d’Ivoire for over three decades after independence, the practice of the Respondent State has been to entertain the legitimate sentiment of a right of persons concerned to Ivorian nationality. 136. Thus, many of these persons have even obtained identification documents like the Ivorian birth certificate, certificate of nationality, the national identity card or the passport. On the other hand, a vast majority of them have never obtained them simply because, since they have never had any links with any 41