hand, the right to equality (Articles 2 and 3) has been violated, and the rights to the recognition of legal status and to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being (Article 5), on the other hand. Concerning the subsequent or derived violations, the Complainant’s allegations are focused on the obligation to give effect to the law (Article 1), on the rights to freedom of movement (Article 12), participation in public life (Article 13), the right to property (Article 14), to work (Article 15), to family protection (Article 18) and to socio-economic and cultural development (Article 22). The Complainant also alleges that Articles 4 and 6 have been violated without however advancing any arguments to that effect. 53. Concerning the violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the African Charter, the Complainant alleges illegal discrimination regarding access to nationality since it is not justified in law and its purpose not legitimate, nor necessary nor proportionate to the end sought. According to the Complainant, the discrimination in terms of access to nationality to which the Dioula people were exposed and are still exposed to or perceived ones is based on their ethnic origin or their religious persuasion. Such discrimination is consequently illegal and unjustified in law since it is prohibited by both the provisions of the aforementioned Articles and the jurisprudence of the Commission and international law. The Complainant further avers that the discrimination denounced is neither necessary nor proportionate to the intended purpose as it tended either to withdraw the rights already acquired or to make the right to nationality an illusion. 54. To support the assertion of being discriminated against on account of the law, the Complainant argues that the 1961 Ivorian Code on nationality is vague and reinforces the doctrine of « Ivoirité » by simply stating that an Ivorian is someone born by an Ivorian. This legal ambivalence is believed to have given unlimited discretion to State officials and thus facilitated the implementation of discriminatory policies and practices. The Complainant affirms that the subsequent discrimination has been manifested by a difference in treatment based on ethnic origin and religious affiliation. On this issue, the Complainant indicates that the term « ivoirité » underpins a notion of a « pure » Ivorian heritage for which the term was institutionalized by the 2000 electoral reforms and it is based on a distinction between « indigenous Ivorians » and « Ivorians from migrant ancestral background ». The foreigners are compared to people who hail from the North, who are also referred to as immigrants, since they do not have any connection with another State. By extension, those from the North with a valid claim to nationality are therefore treated as immigrants and therefore foreigners. 13