Commission. In fact, on the one hand, the Respondent State accepted it while responding to the submissions of the Complainant covering the periods stated above, and on the other hand, the violations are said to be continuing at the time of this decision. 89. On the legal grounds, the Commission notes that on the merits, the Complainant does not submit any argument to buttress the alleged violation of Articles 4 and 6 of the Charter presented during the admissibility stage and maintained in the merits. The Commission consequently recognizes that this is a renunciation and decides to set aside the consideration relating to it. On the other hand, the Complainant extends his claims to the violation of the provisions of Article 15 of the Charter. On these points, the Commission considers that the additional substantive submissions are admissible as long as they are based on the same facts and do not call into question the issues solved under admissibility, and that the author can prove them and the other party can successfully challenge them. The identity or the connections between the facts have been established above. Furthermore, the said submissions have been substantiated and are not in dispute. Regarding the consistency of the additional or new submissions to the issues resolved during the admissibility stage, the Commission will examine it jointly with the related requests. 90. On the said consistency, the Commission notes that in addition to the initial requests, the Complainant requests for amendment of certain provisions of the Ivorian Constitution of 2000 and the legislation on nationality and related issues. It appears to the Commission that the said applications are arising from the de facto and de jure submissions made during the admissibility stage. Moreover, they were lodged within the set deadlines; they result from the exchange of written submissions between the Parties, and the Commission gave the Respondent State ample opportunity to respond to them. Finally, the issue of submitting applications in the first instance before the Commission does not arise as the Complainant was exempted from exhaustion of local remedies. Consequently, the Commission accepts the said submissions and requests and even deems them relevant to subsequent stages regarding the consideration of the merits. Furthermore, having received them before their update, the Commission admits the submissions on the merits in their entirety and will carry out the consideration at the end of the exchange of the submissions. 91. As a prelude to the actual analysis of the merits, the Commission notes that the Complainant first of all concludes on the allegations of violation of rights of equality guaranteed in Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter before pointing to the lack of respect for human dignity and recognition of the legal status 24