guaranteed by Article 5 of the Charter. However, it appears to the Commission that in this Communication, the main cause defended by the Complainant is the deprivation of nationality which the population called by the name « Dioula » were subjected to and will always be subjected to as victims in Côte d’Ivoire. As proof, the Complainant himself asserts that his argument aimed at proving that this alleged deprivation is based mainly on a « legitimate claim » by Dioulas to Ivorian nationality. The allegations of violations of the other provisions of the Charter are concurrent or subsequent to the alleged principal violation. In fact, these subsequent allegations are not the consequence of the principal one independently of which they cannot thrive. Consequently, the Commission will consider the « legitimate claim » to nationality prior to the consideration of other arguments on the merits. 92. With regard to the allegation of violation of Article 1 of the Charter, the Commission notes that the obligation established by the provisions of the said Article can be activated only when a substantive right of the Charter has been violated. The related allegation will be considered after an analysis of the merits concerning the other provisions, the violation of which is also alleged. On the allegation of violation of Article 5 On the law of recognition of legal status: nationality 93. Under the provisions of Article 5, « Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited ». 94. On the argument derived from the violation of the provisions of Article 5 of the Charter, the Complainant asserts, on the one hand, that the lack of precision of the law on nationality has led to the deprivation of the right to nationality and in many instances to statelessness or the risk of statelessness, thus preventing the recognition of the legal status of Ivorians. On the other hand, he avers that the differentiated treatment targeting Dioulas in the area of access to nationality based on foreign-sounding names including their Muslim affiliation violates their dignity. 95. Concerning the first part of the submission and in the light of the provisions of the Charter, as mentioned above, it appears that the Complainant focuses his allegations on the « legitimate claim» of the Dioulas to Ivorian nationality as a right guaranteed by Article 5 of the Charter. It follows that the right 25