determination of nationality which violate the principles of equality and nondiscrimination prescribed by the Charter. In other words, through this ruling, the superior court arbitrarily denied Ivorian nationality to candidate Ouattara on the grounds of « national origin », a ground prohibited by the Charter. Besides, the Commission had also concluded that the provisions of Article 13 of the Charter have been violated. 166. In the case in point, the Commission notes that the provisions of Articles 35 and 65 of the 2000 Ivorian Constitution are still in force. They require every candidate for the presidential election as well as for the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly to be Ivorians born to parents who are themselves Ivorians by origin. Furthermore, candidates for any one of these positions must never have renounced their Ivorian nationality nor acquired another nationality. In the light of its preceding observations, the Commission considers that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Côte d’Ivoire to deny Mr. Ouattara Ivorian nationality on account of his « non-Ivoirian », and indeed, Dioula origin means that Dioulas have been denied Ivorian nationality. Indeed, through the same causes and circumstances, it is evident that no other candidate from the Dioula ethnic group already identified by the law and practice as being of « non-Ivoirian origin », would not have passed the dispute test for candidacy. 167. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court based its ruling on the abovementioned provisions of the Ivorian Constitution which merely echo the denial of nationality sanctioned by the Ivorian nationality code and the successive legislations adopted by the Respondent State. Such is the case of the Dioulas, at the very least. In practice, the Dioulas cannot get elected to the positions concerned since they cannot demonstrate their Ivorian nationality, particularly that of « origin », in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the other relevant legislations, even though they are Ivorians. The fundamental source of this denial is the nationality Code, the most relevant provisions of which are still in force. Thus, since the Code is the legal basis of all subsequent laws and practices relating to nationality, the Dioulas are affected by all the limitations mentioned above, given that they are considered as « non-Ivorians » by origin. The effects of nationality acquired and not « by origin » particularly include, among others, five to ten years disqualification from election to certain elective positions. This state of affairs violates the right to stand for election which is protected by the provisions of Article 13(1) of the Charter. 168. The Ivorian legislation on nationality and eligibility has produced the same adverse effects with regard to the right of Dioulas to appoint representatives of their choice. First, and as a consequence of the preceding 53