SEEKING NATIONALITY THE JUDICIAL ODYSSEY OF APPLICANTS representative refuses to sign the notification, and that, in accordance with CCP Articles 399 and 403. The provisions of the Law Organizing the Ministry of Justice70 also demonstrate that the intention of the legislator was to ensure that the state receives notification of proceedings, judgements, and rulings promptly. The law specifies measures to by giving the entire body of the Committee of Cases the authority to receive the legal notifications of court proceedings and processes in the absence of the President of the Committee as to not incur any delays by limiting this authority to the President only, a matter that implies that no delay in receiving notification should be justified. The short legal delays and measures for legal notification clearly indicate that the legislators intended that the judicial processes be rapid and fair to all parties. Delays in notifying the state is one of the main reasons for prolonging proceedings beyond reasonable time and obstructing the “normal” course of justice. In fact, it has become well-known, to the extent that it has become normal, that notifying the state (represented by the Committee of Cases) is an open process. Twisting The Legal Notification Delays The review of the lawsuits assigned by FRH and the 74 Court of Cassation rulings related to nationality and registration lawsuits issued between 20142017 show that in reality long delays is systematic in judicial proceedings at the first instance, appeal, and cassation stages. The average delay ranges between 3 to 19 years. Most of FRH lawsuits, at the time of writing this study, are still before the Single Judge or First Instance courts. Unjustified and unlawful long delays dominate the judicial processes. long delays are caused by both the litigants and the court. Equally delays occur in registration and nationality lawsuits, though registration lawsuits are relatively quicker than nationality lawsuits. However, in most time, the delays are manipulated to the advantage of the State that is supposed to be the “noble opponent”, when is acting a litigant, is introduced as a third party, or is intervening in the lawsuit, a matter that constitutes in many cases denial of justice, and shows that “power” prevails over the fundamentals of the principles of the rule of law. In the case of stateless individuals, such delays slow down the process of ending their statelessness and to a certain degree discourage them from initiating lawsuits. Another unlawful pattern is followed by the courts. They request from the legal representative or the Applicant him/herself to take the notification and deliver it themselves rather than assigning a bailiff as regulated by CCP, Article 398. This allows for the manipulation of time limits and not receiving notification as neither the legal representative nor the Applicant have the authority to leave the notification with the person to be notified, in case they refuse to sign the delivery book and write that the notification has been delivered. Delays in notifying the state is one of the main reasons for prolonging proceedings beyond reasonable time and obstructing the “normal” course of justice. In fact, it has become well-known, to the extent that it has become normal, that notifying the state (represented by the Committee of Cases) is an open process which is not bound by any time limits and exceeds all legal delays. This pattern is very similar in nationality and registration lawsuits with the variation of the duration of the delay from one type to another. This delay ranges between 6 months to more than 3 years. SEEKING NATIONALITY | PART 3 FRONTIERS RIGHTS The Committee of Cases quasi systematically refuses to receive and/ or sign the legal notification. The unofficial given pretext that the short delay does not allow it to complete the study and obtain the opinions of the General Directorate of Civil Status and the findings of the General Security investigation to build its opinion or its counter-argument. However, the Committee of Cases resorts to devious ways to avoid signing the delivery book as it takes the copy of the legal notification and takes it time to prepare and submit its counter-argument months and sometimes 80