Respondent State does not seem to assess the statistics relating to application for the acquisition of nationality. 131. Furthermore, it is then necessary that at least one of the modes of acquisition of nationality provided for by the 2013 reforms should be applicable to the Dioulas. This is hardly the case because the Law quoted above only really provides for simple declaration in the case of naturalization. Indeed, the list of beneficiaries of the reform only makes reference to foreigners. It is true that a provision covers the status of the Dioulas in the sense that it takes regular residence before independence into account. Having said that, the provision requires « uninterrupted » residence which could be difficult, and indeed impossible to prove, particularly for children born to residents several generations after independence. What is worse is that in its very heading, the Law only deals with « acquisition » and makes no mention of « attribution by way of nationality by origin. » 132. Following the preceding points, the Commission notes that naturalization procedure only holds for persons whose connection is not prior to or consubstantial with the legal establishment of Ivorian nationality, i.e. particularly foreigners residing there before independence, but who have not considered the acquisition of Ivorian nationality, or those who emigrated after independence. The Commission has already concluded that first generation Dioulas cannot be foreigners; neither can their blood descendants, because they have been an integral part of the original and legal Côte d’Ivoire. Whatever the case, the modes of acquisition of nationality provided for by Law No 2013-653 of 13 September, 2013 and its Implementing Order No 2013-848 of 19 December, 2013 are applicable to this category of victims. In reality, what these reforms have in common with the nationality Code is that they neither define the notion of an « Ivorian » nor that of a « foreigner », let alone identify clearly and holistically the groups of settlements present in Côte d’Ivoire at the time of the legal establishment of Ivorian nationality. In this case, the considered reforms can only be of benefit to the Dioulas after the original status of the latter has been restored. Whatever the case, the most appropriate procedure would be to grant the Dioulas Ivorian nationality by way of nationality by origin and by simple declaration. 133. With regard to second generation Dioulas and foreigners, the Commission has already noted that they are governed by a similar status, the difference being that the time spent in Côte d’Ivoire must count and that all rights acquired should be maintained retroactively, among others. An appropriate study of this second category of victims requires an introductory reminder of the legal standards which have governed them since the adoption of the nationality Code. In 1961, the said Code provided that minors born in Côte 40