SEEKING NATIONALITY THE JUDICIAL ODYSSEY OF APPLICANTS A large number of the State’s counter arguments in a number of reviewed nationality lawsuits show that they fail to present serious legal analysis in terms of its legal grounds, merits, and reasoning and do not present justification for their decisions. Applicant was born in Lebanon. Yet, the legal brief concluded that “it has been established and proven that the Applicant was born in Lebanon and did not acquire, by birth, any foreign nationality, and that his parents are of an unknown nationality”! Another lawsuit before the Court of First Instance was based on Article 4 of Decision No. 15/1925. The plaintiff was a child born to a naturalized father by the Naturalization Decree No. 5247/1994. The plaintiff was a minor when her father acquired the Lebanese nationality. The lawyer only stated that she was born to a father who was naturalized. He failed to mention the two conditions for the applicability of Article 4 provisions: the date of birth of the plaintiff and the date the father executed the naturalization decree and acquired the Lebanese nationality! In a lawsuit involving the acquisition of the nationality submitted on behalf of a nomad plaintiff and his son on the basis of birth in Lebanon and belonging to nomadic tribe residing in Lebanon for decades. The lawyer’s legal brief was quasi void of necessary proof of the two conditions. It did not provide reasonable evidence supported with documentation about the family’s ancestors were nomads who did not register in 1932 population census for historical reasons, and the birth occurred on the Lebanese territory. The lawyers supported the case by giving facts about the Plaintiff relatives who were registered in Lebanese registers in order to prove that the plaintiff has Lebanese roots on the basis that his ancestors from his father’s side were residing on the Lebanese territory in 1924 and were born in Lebanon. Moreover, the lawsuit was submitted on behalf of the father only as no facts were presented regarding the son! Furthermore, the legal grounds and facts were badly muddled. The legal grounds were badly muddled. The lawsuit was submitted on grounds of paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Decision 15 (born in Lebanon and did not acquire any foreign nationality upon birth) rather than Article 1 of Decision No. 2825/1924 (having Lebanese roots and residing in Lebanon in 1924 but not acquiring the Lebanese nationality)! State Counter arguments: A Long List of Negligence In nationality lawsuits, the State is represented by lawyers assigned by the Ministry of Justice – Case Affairs body. A large number of the State’s counter arguments in a number of reviewed nationality lawsuits show that they fail to present serious legal analysis in terms of its legal grounds, merits, and reasoning and do not present justification for their decisions. They usually adopt the opinion of the General Directorate of Personal Civil Status Department, particularly when their opinions tend to be negative. In such situation, it becomes difficult for the plaintiff to respond to such counter argument briefs. This violates the right to defend the claim and respond to the State’s arguments. Some of the State’s counter arguments are abusive of the process and indicate the State’s practice to just provide legal grounds regardless if they are valid or not. In addition, some State’s counter arguments are filled on a pre-set template and all counter argument briefs systematically contains the expression “request to dismiss the case on procedural grounds” without tackling the plaintiff’s requests and thoroughly looking into the Applicant legal brief to see if it is contrary to the process of law and should be dismissed on procedural grounds. SEEKING NATIONALITY | PART 3 FRONTIERS RIGHTS Laconic Counter arguments: Contradiction and Lack of Justification In one nationality lawsuit based on jus soli and Decision No. 2825, the State’s counter brief was made of one single page. In addition, it was a pre-prepared template and the names of the Applicants and attorney, and the reference number were filled by hand. The State’s reply was devoid of any legal analysis and justification for their opinion. Yet the State requested the dismissal of the case on procedural grounds as it is found that is does not meet the procedural requirements set by the process of law. Further, The State declared its adoption of the opinion of the administration which dismissed the legal arguments of the Application for its illegality, abuse of process, and lack of evidence. 62