A. T HE R IGHT TO NAT IONALIT Y FOR EV E RY INDIV IDUAL The central rationale in both cases was that the affected individual was indeed living in ‘his own country’. By referring to General Comment 27, the Committee delved into Article 12 which entitles everyone to return to their own country. The term ‘own country’ is broader than the term ‘country of nationality’ as understood in Nottebohm. It indicates that there exist ‘factors other than nationality which may establish close and enduring connections between a person and a country, connections which may be stronger than those of nationality’.28 Factors such as longterm residence, family relations, and intentions to remain along with the absence of similar ties to another country, establish that it is the individual’s own country even when they are not recognised as citizens of that country. As per General Comment 27, this broader concept applies to nationals of a country who have been arbitrarily deprived of their nationality and stateless persons arbitrarily blocked from acquiring the nationality of the country of their residence.29 These two situations refer to the communities which are central to this report, viz. Indian nationals in Assam who are facing arbitrary deprivation of nationality, and stateless persons in India, respectively. While India filed a reservation against Article 12, stating that it would apply this provision in conformity with Article 19 of the Indian Constitution (‘Constitution’), these principles will still have a bearing on precarious citizens in Assam, all of whom are Indian nationals facing arbitrary deprivation of nationality [↘]. Hence, the Indian reservation does not affect their right to reside in their ‘own country’. International human rights law has elucidated and expanded the genuine link test by grounding it in expansive interpretations of international treaty provisions. Nottebohm, among its several shortcomings, applied the genuine link assessment to negate the only formal nationality Mr. Nottebohm had. The risks of basing an individual’s claim to nationality of a 28  Jama Warsame v Canada (n 26) 17. 29 UN Human Rights Committee ‘CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)’ (1999) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9. chapter i • status 47 SECTION I.A.1 see Section I.A.3 (Chapter I), pg 50