form of discrimination against the Dioulas with regard to the access to Ivorian nationality. It is common knowledge that Mr. Alassane Ouattara comes from the Dioula ethnic group of the northern region of Côte d’Ivoire and is also of Muslim religious persuasion. Although he produced his own birth certificate and national identity card as well as those of his parents, his candidacy was rejected on the grounds of inadequate proof of his Ivorian nationality. Under the same circumstances, candidate Robert Guéï only produced his birth certificate and family tree which he drew himself. The Supreme Court ruled that it was ample proof and, therefore, authorized candidate Guéï to stand in the election. 150. The Commission considers that although it is highly important to note that the Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits de l’Homme case was on the dispute surrounding the candidacy of persons to the presidential election in Côte d’Ivoire, this dispute was also eminently, if not fundamentally, dealing with nationality and the enjoyment of the rights which go with them. Indeed, it is clear that the Supreme Court could only arrive at this improper and unreasonable application of the definition, or the lack thereof, of the qualities of an « Ivorian » and a « foreigner » under the nationality Code because the law allowed it. More precisely, the legal basis of the ruling of the Supreme Court is the establishment by the Code of an « Ivorian by origin » without defining who this Ivorian is. As mentioned above, the similarities of candidate Ouattara with the Dioulas border on identity. In reality, in addition to being a Dioula, candidate Ouattara was also one of the most popular Dioulas in Côte d’Ivoire, having served for several years as Prime Minister in the Government of the first President of Côte d’Ivoire, Mr. Félix HouphouëtBoigny. The only other basis for discrimination against candidate Ouattara was the fact that he was not an « Ivorian by origin ». It is common knowledge that the Dioulas are the people who are most perceived as Ivorians « by origin ». Consequently, it is the most symbolic form of discrimination against Dioulas. Without prejudice to the outcome of the analysis on this point, such a conclusion will have full meaning when the violations alleged by the Complainant as a consequence of the discrimination so observed by the Commission are being considered. 151. In short, with regard to discrimination against Dioulas, the Commission notes that it is based on their ethnic origin, consonance of their patronymics and their Muslim religious persuasion. On the one hand, discrimination implies two groups of Ivorian citizens who are treated differently on bases prohibited by the Charter. On the other hand, successive Governments of the Respondent State produced no objective and reasonable justification, while the Complainant showed evidence of a difference in treatment. With regard to the other victims, the same conclusions are applicable within the limits of 47