Given there is a restriction to video quality, it only follows as common sense to have quality restrictions to pictures. In fact, this is exactly what historically occurred in this registry, and why the Policy became eventually updated to be explicit about a resolution restriction for Profile Picture.

These restrictions don't require to be explicit in the rules, however. The Proof of Humanity registry defaults towards ensuring the quality of the registry, and this means, it defaults towards not allowing requests that don't satisfy minimum quality requirements.

The Profile Picture by itself has a resolution of 200px by 200px. But, unlike most other pictures, the face of the submitter appears to be rather far away. If you measure the size of the face of the submitter, you will realize it just covers 72px by 93px.

Moreover, the submitter is not looking at the camera. It's common knowledge for biometrically inclined photography to look straight at the camera. A small Google query will show this is a common issue that results in people having to take a new picture, for items such as passports or ID cards. This is the case even if the facial structure is pointing towards the camera, the eyes need to face the camera as well.

All in all, due to many issues, and specially the low quality of the Profile Picture, this profile should be rejected. Bringing up a niche technicality that has a different Policy is not a valid excuse to let a bad submission slip through. This is precisely why the Policy was fixed, so, the spirit of the registry is to stop this invalid request from entering.

Likewise, if an appeal is required, I will bring further evidence. But just so that jurors are aware, Case 1423 is a similar dispute in which the submitter has a clearer image, and jurors have voted to Reject for two rounds. The appellant is interested in setting out a narrative to continue appealing both cases.