G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT not be considered an interference by the national authorities with his right to private life. 104. Concerning the issue of guardianship in respect of the applicant, the Government submitted that, under the applicable law, Ms X had never lost it and had been the only person responsible for her son’s administrative situation. According to a certificate from the Directorate General for Protection of Minors, Childhood and Family of the Government of the Canary Islands, that institution (or any other institution of the Canary Islands) had never had guardianship in respect of the applicant, and nor had he ever been in any centre for the protection of minors. The Government also explained that it had not been compulsory for the applicant to have an ID card until he was fourteen years old, and that, by the time he had reached that age, his mother had already requested his birth registration, so the procedure had already been under way. Therefore, no obligation could be derived for the public authorities to take steps to initiate the applicant’s birth registration when his own mother had taken no such steps. 105. Concerning the main aspect of the complaint under Article 8, that is, the length of the proceedings for the applicant to obtain his birth certificate and subsequently an ID card, the Government submitted that, even if the procedure to register the applicant’s birth could be considered an interference with his rights under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, it would have been justified by the requirements set out in Article 8 § 2. First, it was undisputed that the authorities had simply followed the existing regulations in order to be able to register the applicant’s birth many years after he had been born. It had been necessary to comply with several requirements in order to guarantee that any birth registration accurately reflected the true situation, and it had therefore been necessary to carefully assess whether he was who Ms X was claiming. A person could not be registered as somebody’s son simply by a declaration of that other person and without any documentary support or other evidence. In particular, the Government argued that the Spanish authorities had followed the Law on the Civil Registry as in force, as well as the applicable Regulations. They also maintained that the requirements had pursued a legitimate aim, which was simply to be rigorous in the registration of any Spanish nationals and to avoid any potential damage to Spanish citizens caused by misrepresentations of reality. A reckless practice of birth registrations could lead to baby trafficking or other issues which would undoubtedly have serious consequences. Lastly, the Government submitted that it had been necessary in a democratic society to take the necessary steps (i) to check whether the applicant’s birth had already been registered in Mexico; (ii) to check whether any information on the birth had existed, which would have been crucial for any subsequent registration; (iii) in the absence of the above, to obtain any other documents concerning the existence of a mother-son relationship; and (iv) in the absence of any direct documentary evidence, to obtain any other information through witness statements in 28