SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS stands. “To proceed otherwise in dismissing the victim’s claims on the ground that he or she could have avoided the discrimination by altering one of the factors in question – for example, by acquiring a nationality – would render Article 14 devoid of substance” (Andrejeva, cited above, § 91, emphasis added; see, for a similar reasoning, Muñoz Díaz v. Spain, no. 49151/07, § 70, ECHR 2009). Following that logic, a failure to apply for citizenship cannot be a relevant factor for assessing the proportionality of the denial of a benefit reserved for citizens of the State concerned (compare Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 393, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). As regards discrimination cases generally, we find it very troublesome that the Andrejeva logic is abandoned in the present case. The majority’s reasoning risks undermining the very essence of the prohibition of discrimination. This case is about nationality. We wonder to what other nonimmutable prohibited grounds the majority would be prepared to extend this reasoning. It appears to us to be a dangerous and slippery slope. 19. As regards the situation of permanently resident non-citizens, the logic of personal choice adopted by the majority would, in any event, only work if, since the restoration of independence, the access of that group to citizenship had been relatively smooth and easy. It is striking, however, that the naturalisation difficulties faced for many years by non-citizens, the extent to which Latvian naturalisation law and policy were criticised and the consistent engagement of the European and international community, including the Council of Europe, to bring about a change in this regard is passed over in silence in the judgment (see, for two recent overviews, Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, Democratic Transition and Linguistic Minorities in Estonia and Latvia, April 2018, and K. Krūma, Country Report on Citizenship Law: Latvia, EUDO Citizenship Observatory, EUI, 2015, and the authorities cited therein). Finally, even if the applicants were to obtain Latvian citizenship, they would be treated like other citizens only for the future. The difference in treatment in the years before their naturalisation would not be retrospectively abolished, as the amount of their pension would not be recalculated ex tunc (see paragraph 67 of the present judgment). 20. We would also like to observe that underlying the majority’s reference to the possibility of acquiring citizenship is an implicit assumption that it is primarily, or perhaps even exclusively, through citizenship that ties leading to the grant of socio-economic rights are established with a given State. This belies the Court’s long-standing case-law. Lawful residence in a country, especially a long-standing residence, creates certain ties as well giving rise to certain obligations for the State concerned. Article 1 of the Convention provides that States shall secure to everyone “within their jurisdiction” the human rights guaranteed by the Convention, thus making clear that respect for human rights is not due to 85