Ivorian » consonance of their names. They received the same treatment because they were from the northern region of Côte d’Ivoire and that they were Muslims. Even persons perceived to be Dioulas who had acquired nationality documents at a certain point, had these documents seized for the same reasons. 147. Through the reforms undertaken after the 2002 failed coup d’état, and particularly in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2013, successive Governments of the Respondent State also recognized discrimination against Dioulas and identified it as the main cause of the political crisis which shook Côte d’Ivoire for more than a decade. No members of any other ethnic or religious group in Côte d’Ivoire have been subjected to such discriminations, even though the common characteristic among them is that they were born in Côte d’Ivoire or that they were simply Ivorians in much the same way as the Dioulas. 148. It is noteworthy that the Complainant refers to the rejection of the candidacy of Mr. Alassane Ouattara for the 2000 presidential election as being the most symbolic manifestation of discrimination within the context of this Communication. Requirements for candidates in this election were governed by the provisions of Article 35 of the 2000 Constitution of Côte d’Ivoire. Under these provisions, any candidate for the presidential election « … must be an Ivorian by origin, born to an Ivorian father and an Ivorian mother who are themselves Ivorians by origin ». The Commission notes that it has already reached a conclusion in the Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits de l’Homme v. Côte d’Ivoire case to the effect that these provisions violate the right to equality before the law protected by Article 2 of the African Charter, in the sense that they accord a different treatment to persons born in Côte d’Ivoire on the sole basis of the presumed foreign origin of their parents.40 The Commission then considered that the restriction of access to the highest political positions of the State was in itself not a violation. However, it concluded that when such a restriction is discriminatory, unreasonable and unjustifiable, its objective is destroyed by this unreasonable nature.41 149. In the case in point, the Commission referred to the facts reported by the Complainant and its aforementioned decision to note that the disqualification of candidate Alassane Ouattara by the Supreme Court of Côte d’Ivoire was an act of outright discrimination in violation of Article 2 of the Charter. With regard to this Communication, the Commission notes that the terms of the provisions of Article 35 of the Constitution of Côte d’Ivoire which have been found to be inconsistent with Article 2 of the Charter are the most elaborated See also Legal Resources Foundation v. Zambia, op. cit. See Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits de l’Homme v. Côte d’Ivoire Communication 246/02 (2008) AHRLR 74 (ACHPR 2008) Paragraphs 84-86. 40 41 46