Ivorian nationality under the aegis of the nationality Code. Consequently, the implementation of the decision of the Commission on this point will resolve any violation of the right of the Dioulas to access ownership. Thus, once the right to Ivorian nationality of the Dioulas has been restored, they will be exempted from the application of the limitations mentioned above. Although it is true the Dioulas could be victims of a potential violation of the right to ownership if the Ivorian law on rural land is applied, the wrong should still occur or it should be demonstrated that there remains a future risk of violation in the absence of an amendment of the Law. The Complainant does not prove that this risk occurred against the Dioulas prior to this Communication. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that a violation has occurred. 174. However, since the nationality Code has still not been reformed, the issue of Ivorian nationality by origin of the Dioulas remains up to date. Consequently, the risk of a future violation is real because there is no guarantee that the present and future authorities of the Respondent State will not apply the disputed provisions to the Dioulas, particularly those under Article 26 of the Rural Land Act. The deadlines for the various prescriptions of Law No 2013-655 of 13 September, 2013 amending the Law on rural land concerning the declaration of peaceful and continuous enjoyment of ownership of parcels of rural land constitute enough evidence of this situation. The risk of expropriation of the Dioulas on the unfair and discriminatory basis of their perceived « non-Ivorian » status has survived the 2013 rural land reform. Incidentally, it is proper to conclude that there is a potential violation of Article 14 of the Charter. 175. With regard to the other victims, the Commission notes that the Complainant does not provide evidence to support the alleged violation of their right to ownership. An evaluation of the relevance and effectiveness of the rural land reform will consequently mean a reversion to the conduct of an abstract study on the compliance of the said reform with the provisions of Article 14 of the Charter. The Commission considers that such a study is inopportune. Furthermore, the dispute under consideration does not deal with a lack of implementation of the Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits de l’Homme (I) decision. It follows that it is not proper to conduct a specific study of and how the land reform has complied with the said decision. Violation of Article 15 176. In Article 15, the Charter stipulates that « Every individual shall have the right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions, and shall receive equal pay for equal work ». To allege that these provisions have been 56