other State similar to those they had with Côte d’Ivoire, they have never felt like citizens of another country other than the former. However, and more significantly, the authorities of the Respondent State have conceived the feeling of belonging to Côte d’Ivoire through a vague and inaccurate Code. Besides, they have entertained this sentiment for decades and have granted persons concerned both documents attesting to that effect and rights they have enjoyed over several generations before the outbreak of political troubles which gave birth to the concept of « ivoirité » in the mid-90s. Incidentally, the Commission considers that the fact that the Respondent State has conceived and entertained this sentiment of « living together » to include the victims, the sentiment and attachment these people have experienced and the privileges they have enjoyed therefrom crystallized into a deep sentiment of having become Ivorians. The Commission considers that this sentiment and its attendant privileges are established rights. 137. All the legal consequences must be associated with these established rights. Since the reforms of 2013 were less advantageous than those which led to the benefit of the established rights for the second category of victims, they cannot be applicable to them. Thus, the Law of 2013 is more restrictive and demanding, in the sense that, it substitutes an extremely discretionary naturalization procedure which has demonstrated its limits in the past for a simplified and fairer acquisition procedure. In short, the Law is explicitly based on good intentions, but its substance and procedures are inappropriate. The facts reported by the Complainant clearly prove that this state of affairs always prevents victims from acquiring nationality. The Commission considers that the consequences of the established right should lead to the retroactive application of the enjoyment of the rights, particularly taking both the era and the time of residence into account. The new reforms do not meet these demands. Consequently, they do not entirely resolve the issues raised by this Communication and are not in keeping with the relevant provisions of Article 5 of the Charter. 138. In short, on the right to nationality as a recognition of legal status, the Commission observes that the Ivorian nationality Code establishes original nationality for Ivorians and acquired nationality for foreigners, but fails to clearly define who an outright Ivorian is, who an Ivorian by origin is and who a foreigner is. This way, the Code and laws adopted by successive Governments of the Respondent State have prevented access to nationality both theoretically and practically. In practice, the Commission concludes that first generation Dioulas have a historically and legally founded claim to Ivorian nationality « by origin » or « by attribution ». With regard to second generation Dioulas and foreigners defined above, they have the same claim by established rights to nationality by naturalization through the most 42