prevented from benefitting from the promotion as a judge because his identity had been called into question as a result of his foreign-sounding names and his religious affiliation. The identity of this person had been fraudulently determined whereas he had done all his studies as an Ivorian citizen and presented the entire dossier required to sit for the examinations into the judiciary, including his certificate of nationality, his birth certificate, his national identity card and his military certificate. 77. The Complainant also reports the testimony of « Salifou », born in 1982 in Côte d’Ivoire but whose nationality was turned down several times even while he was young at a time his parents had obtained citizenship by naturalization in 1995. It became impossible for him to continue his education as he was unable to sit for the baccalauréat examinations for lack of a national identity card or a passport confirming his nationality. 78. As previously mentioned, the Complainant also alleges the violation of the provisions of Articles 4 and 6 of the Charter. Referred to at the admissibility stage, these allegations were maintained in the arguments on the merits. However, the Complainant does not produce any argument to buttress the said allegations. 79. Based on the above-mentioned conclusions, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent State has violated the provisions of Article 1 of the Charter. He supports this argument by alleging the failure of the State to provide the necessary measures towards the respect, including the protection, promotion and realisation of the rights mentioned above. 80. The Complainant finally pleads with the Commission to review the requests indicated in its arguments on the admissibility. He justifies such a request by the need to contextualize the dispute before the Commission in the light of recent developments of the Ivorian legislation and the arguments presented on the merits. The arguments of the Respondent State on the Merits 81. The Respondent State does not dispute the facts reported nor the allegations of the Complainant. On the contrary, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire asserts that these problems which were rampant during the decade of socio-political crisis are being resolved thanks to efforts by the government towards improving the human rights situation and the re-ordering of the social fabric. In support of its stance, the Respondent State provides evidence that it has adopted a series of legislative measures implemented, particularly in 2013, with the aim of addressing the deprivation of nationality. 21