conception of nationality which, in addition to being the competence of the State, is a human right’.112 Thus, the powers of States to regulate matters of nationality are determined by their obligations under human rights law. Regarding Article 20 (right to nationality) ACHR, more specifically, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that it includes two elements: The right to a nationality provides the individual with a minimum measure of legal protection in international relations, through the link his nationality establishes between him and the State in question; and second, the protection therein accorded the individual against the arbitrary deprivation of his nationality, without which he would be deprived for all practical purposes of all his political rights as well as those civil rights that are tied to the nationality of the individual.113 Accordingly, in the case Bronstein v Peru, the Court found the act of acquiring Peruvian nationality to link both Mr Bronstein and his family ‘to the political society, the culture, the way of life and the values of Peru’. 114 It also found the right to nationality to be a requirement for the exercise of his rights, such as in this case the right to freedom of thought and expression. The case involved a former Israeli national (Baruch Ivcher Bronstein) who renounced his Israeli nationality to take on Peruvian nationality; he was also a majority shareholder as well as director and president of Channel 2 of the Peruvian television network. Following his broadcast of reports critical of the Peruvian government concerning human rights violations and corruption, his Peruvian nationality was revoked in order to remove him from the editorial control of Channel 2. Soon after, all critical journalists were removed from Channel 2 also. The State of Peru sought to justify its act of deprivation of nationality under the cover of a routine review. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights found the deprivation of nationality to constitute a violation of Article 20 of the ACHR (right to nationality) because the annulment of his nationality was not consensual and the procedure used to annul the nationality did not comply with provisions of domestic law, therefore it was arbitrary. The Court also found the act of deprivation of nationality to violate Article 8 (right to a fair trial) because this provision is not restricted to judicial remedies but applies also to a number of requirements that must be observed by the procedural bodies. 115 The Court found the deprivation of nationality to violate Article 13 (freedom of thought and expression) because by depriving Advisory Opinion on Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica, OC4/84, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR), 19 January 1984, paras. 32 and 33 - available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/44e492b74.html [accessed 10 June 2013] 113 Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR), 30 May 1999, para.100, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/44e494cb4.html [accessed 19 July 2013]. See also, Constitution of Costa Rica, OC-4/84, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR), 19 January 1984, para.34 - available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/44e492b74.html [accessed 10 June 2013] 114 Bronstein v Peru, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 6 February 2001, para.93. 115 Bronstein v Peru, para.102. 112 19