As this guidance suggests, where the state accuses an individual of fraudulent acquisition of citizenship or asserts that citizenship has previously been recognized in error, the “realities” at play demand more careful review in order to mitigate the heightened risk of arbitrary deprivation of nationality. The Tunis Conclusions also set out basic principles that should be considered in assessing the adequacy of procedural safeguards in the context of denationalization: [L]oss and deprivation of nationality may only take place in accordance with law and accompanied by full procedural guarantees, including the right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body. It is essential that the decisions of the body concerned be binding on the executive power. The person affected by deprivation of nationality has the right to have the decision issued in writing, including the reasons for the deprivation. Deprivation decisions are only to enter into effect at the moment all judicial remedies have been exhausted.115 These principles follow the guidance from the Human Rights Council in its 2013 report on arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Where a person is subject to loss or deprivation of nationality and a review process is available, lodging an appeal should suspend the effects of the decision, such that the individual continues to enjoy nationality — and related rights — until such time as the appeal has been settled. Access to the appeals process may become problematic and related due process guarantees nullified if the loss or deprivation of nationality is not suspended and the former national, now alien, is expelled. Similarly, if withdrawal of nationality results in the loss of property rights, the individual may have to forfeit his home or business, as well as other acquired rights — an interference which may be difficult to repair if it is subsequently established that the loss or deprivation of nationality was unlawful or arbitrary and must be reversed.116 A formidable framework of international agreements and national laws limits states’ power to deprive people of nationality. Any such effort must survive scrutiny of purpose and scrutiny of impact—including the prohibition of discrimination and avoidance of statelessness—and must also follow due process. Yet as the next section explores, these safeguards have not always prevented malicious efforts to use denationalization as a weapon. 34 UNMAKING AMERICANS