Commission, the State is not justified in depriving a person of nationality for the sole purpose of expelling him or her 18 nor can State be justified in depriving for the purpose of denying a national entry into the territory, given that nationals have the right, enshrined in Article 13(2) of the UDHR, to return to their country of nationality. 19 Further, deprivation of citizenship, which has as a basis the alleged commission of acts of terrorism, such as membership or travel, may – despite its alleged ‘administrative’ nature - also be in violation of the principle of ne bis in idem, given the severely punitive impact of deprivation and the consequences on other human rights. We are particularly mindful of the long-term human rights consequences of extended prison sentences for crimes of terrorism and cumulative administrative measures after criminal sentences are completed, which will have a substantial impact on family relationships, and the rights to private and family life. 20 Necessity and proportionality The proportionality assessment requires that the immediate and long-term impact of deprivation of nationality on the rights of the individual, including their children and their family life, is proportionate to the legitimate purpose being pursued. 21 A human rights compliant proportionality assessment must be read in conjunction with the right to private and family life, as protected by Article 17 ICCPR and Article 8 ECHR, as well as with article 3(1) of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, which enshrines the principle that in all actions concerning children, the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration. Deprivation of nationality, particularly when combined with a declaration that the person is an “undesirable alien” – which amounts to an entry ban – increases the risk of that person being expelled or refused re-admission, including upon completion of any criminal sentence. This impacts upon the right to private and family life of the person being deprived of his or her nationality, 22 but also the right to family life of family members, which has a particularly serious impact on children and the rights of the child. Deprivation of adult nationality may in practice result in de facto deprivation of nationality for children. 18 19 21 22 A/HRC/13/34, 14 December 2009, para. 25. Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, ‘Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure’, Principle 7.5 ILC, ‘Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens (with commentaries)’ (2014) II(2) YBILC, p. 13 (Article 8), commentary, para. 1. See also UN Human Rights Committee, ‘CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)’ (1999), para. 21. Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, ‘Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure’, Principle 7.2.1.2 and UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, Intervention in the case of Shamima vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department, UK Court of Appeal (2020), para. 19 20 UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, A/HRC/46/36. Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, ‘Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure’, Principle 7.5.1. Arbitrary denial of nationality can raise an issue under the right to private life as it is part of a person’s social identity protected as part of this right. European Court of Human Rights, Genovese v. Malta, Application no. 53124/09, para 30. European Court of Human Rights, Ramadan v. Malta, Application no. 76136/12, para 85; European Court of Human Rights, K2 v United Kingdom, Application no. 42387/13, para 49. See also Institute on statelessness and Inclusion, ‘Deprivation of nationality as a national security measure: An assessment of the compliance of the Netherlands with international human rights standards”, July 2020. 5