25 • • • • • that different factors would be taken into account including the habitual residence of the individual, the centre of his interests, his family ties, his participation in public life and the attachment shown by him for a given country and taught to his children. The court noted that in practice certain states held back from exercising protection in favour of naturalized persons where such persons had a prolonged absence and had broken links with the country in which they were naturalized. It further noted that in practice, nationality had to correspond with the factual situation. The court observed that a State would only be entitled to exercise protection against another State for an individual if in juridical terms the individual’s connection with the State had made him its national. The court noted that at the time of naturalization Mr. Nottebohm had been a German national by birth and he had always maintained connections with members of his family that remained in Germany. There was no indication that his application for naturalization was motivated by his desire to dissociate himself from Germany. The court further noted that Mr. Nottebohm had been in Guatamela for 34 years and he had resided and engaged in business there. After his naturalization in Liechtenstein, he returned to Guatemala and continued to engage in business and reside there. He stayed in Guatemala until his removal as a result of war measures in 1943. He complained that Guatemala The court further observed that Mr. Nottebohm’s connections to Liechtenstein were extremely refused to allow him to return to its territory. The court weak as he had no home there nor a prolonged further observed that Mr. Nottebohm’s connections to residence in Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein were extremely weak as he had no home there nor a prolonged residence in Liechtenstein. The court held that there was an absence of any bond of attachment between Mr. Nottebohm and Liechtenstein but that he had long-standing and close connections with Guatemala. That link between Mr. Nottebohm and Guatemala had not been weakened by his naturalization. The court held that Mr. Nottebohm secured nationality in Liechtenstein because it was a neutral state. He wanted to avoid being a national of a hostile and aggressive state in eyes of Guatemala by being naturalized. Therefore, the court held that Guatemala had no obligation to recognize nationality granted under such circumstances and Liechtenstein was not entitled to grant Mr. Nottebohm protection against Guatemala. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST