Judgment No 335-13-JP oppose the procedure. 27 The use of press notification should be an ultima ratio measure. 28 On the other hand, in relation to the second question of law, on whether the revocation of nationality by naturalisation violated the plaintiff’s right to nationality, the Court based its reasoning on the ACHR and found that the deprivation of his right to nationality was arbitrary. 29 This was due to the absence of an assessment of the effects of the revocation decision and the possible needs for international protection in the plaintiff’s particular case. 30 Likewise, the Court recognised the discretionary power of the state to determine the grounds for revocation of nationality by naturalisation, as long as this power is not used for arbitrary acts and that the human rights of all persons under its jurisdiction are guaranteed in all procedures with a direct impact on the right to nationality and, indirectly, on the enjoyment of other rights. 31 Thus, according to the Constitutional Court, any procedure related to the person's right to nationality must consider the effects of the decision adopted, to avoid statelessness or irregular immigration statuses. 32 The Court determined that any authority adopting a decision affecting the right to nationality must analyse situations of statelessness through particular international obligations. First those derived from human rights and statelessness instruments. Second, the IACrtHR's findings on the obligation of states to prevent, avoid and reduce statelessness in regulating nationality and recognising the need for international protection for those without a nationality. 33 In JP, it is noted that the plaintiff lost his Cuban nationality by acquiring Ecuadorian nationality through naturalisation, in accordance with the legislation on the acquisition of Cuban nationality. 34 The Ministry did not notice this when issuing the administrative act, which revoked the plaintiff’s Ecuadorian nationality. 35 The Court also held that it is necessary to assess the immigration status of the person whose nationality was revoked, to inform them of the alternatives available to regularise their status and avoid situations of irregularity. 36 All of the foregoing led the Constitutional Court to conclude that there was a violation of the right to nationality provided for in art 6 of the Constitution of Ecuador, due to arbitrary deprivation of the plaintiff’s right to nationality. 37 The Court determined that the detention of the plaintiff at Guayaquil Airport constituted a violation of his rights to liberty and personal integrity. It was arbitrary as the plaintiff was detained for more than three days without a court order, legal process or supervision by a jurisdictional authority, in accordance with the Court's jurisprudence on the matter. 38 The inhuman conditions to which the plaintiff was 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 JP (n 5) 11 [59] (Salazar Marín J). ibid 12 [63]. JP (n 6) 13–14 [71]–[72]. See ibid 13–17 [68]–[90] (Salazar Marín J). ibid 14 [74]. ibid 14 [75]. ibid 16 [84]–[85]. ibid 14 [76]–[77]. ibid 15 [78]. ibid 16 [84]. ibid 17 [90]. ibid 24 [115]–[116]. 5