FRONTIERS RIGHTS SEEKING NATIONALITY THE JUDICIAL ODYSSEY OF APPLICANTS Similar one-page counter argument brief submitted by the State’s attorney in a nationality lawsuit based on Art. 1 (2) and (3) of Decision No. 15/1925, the State’s dismissed the case without adequate legal justification. It simply adopted the brief unsupported of the General Directorate of Civil Status opinion that stated: “the text of Article 1 of Decision No. 15 issued on … does not apply to the case of the Applicants”. Yet, the investigation of the General Security did not refute the legal grounds upon which the Applicant based his requests in the legal brief. In another nationality lawsuit based on Art. 1 (2) and (3) of Decision No. 15/1925 in which the Applicant holds an under-study residency permit (Qayd adDars), the State legal brief dismissed the case and simply stated that it adopts the response of the General Directorate of Civil Status which argued that the legal provisions upon which the Applicant based his claim, do not apply as the Applicant falls under the category of “nationality under study” (Qayd adDars) without providing any justification or explanation as to why the legal provisions do not apply to the case. Many Contradictions In response to the legal brief submitted by an unregistered woman to acquire the Lebanese nationality by marriage, The State’s attorney counter argument brief requested that Applicant to provide proof by submitting relevant documentation that she had applied for the nationality administratively and at the same time it requested the dismissal of the case. In another nationality lawsuit, the State counter argument brief contained contradictory opinion as on one hand, it requested delaying the matter until the General Directorate of Civil Status provides its opinion and the results of the General Security investigations outcome and DNA tests it, and on the other hand, it requested the dismissal of the case on ground for “…its illegality, invalidity, inaccuracy, and lack of proof”. SEEKING NATIONALITY | PART 3 Irrelevance of legal ground In some cases, the State’s attorney legal counter arguments are irrelevant. For example, in a nationality lawsuit based Art. 1 (2) of Decision No. 15/1925, the State attorney dismissed the case and once again based his arguments on the opinion of the General Directorate of Civil Status which presumed that the Applicants did not present any documents that prove they are of Lebanese roots while the Applicants’ lawsuit was submitted on grounds they are born in Lebanon and have not acquired any foreign nationality upon birth, a legal ground that is not linked to Lebanese roots. In another nationality lawsuit related to the acquisition of nationality by marriage involving unregistered woman (Maktoumat al Qayd) married to a Lebanese man, the State’s attorney counter arguments brief requested the dismissal of the case on the basis of the intentions of the Applicant! The brief argued that the Applicant seemed to have waited until the death of her husband to request proof of her marriage in order to register her children and acquire the Lebanese nationality through marriage. The State attorney ignored that the children are already registered in their father’s personal status civil record and they are not applying to acquire a nationality, and that their mother is requesting the Lebanese nationality on ground of her marriage to a Lebanese national for more than one year in accordance with Article 5 of Decision No. 15/1925! Failure to Understand Legal Concepts A large number of State’s counter arguments contain misunderstanding and/or confusion of legal concepts, or incorrectly use of laws not related to nationality and civil status cases. For example, the term “nationality is used to refer to “under study” case. This is revealed in few lawsuits related to Applicants holding “under-study” residency permit. The States attorney considered that the conditions of Article 1 (2) of Decision No. 15/1925, and more specifically the second condition [not acquiring any foreign nationality upon birth], do not apply as the Applicants are classified in the “under-study” category at the General Directorate of General Security confusing that such a classification does not mean holding a nationality. Another confusion is when the term “origins/roots” is used to mean nationality. This is the case of an Applicant of Egyptian origin the State adamantly insisted that the Applicant and his children hold the Egyptian nationality when, in reality, they are only of Egyptian origin but are not eligible for the Egyptian nationality. In addition, the State confuses between acquiring the nationality and being granted the nationality in accordance by a Naturalization Decree. Further, in one nationality lawsuit based on Article 1 (2) of Decision No. 2825/1924 related to residency on the Lebanese territories, the State stated that the courts of justice have no jurisdiction to grant nationality but rather its acquisition shall 64