Withdrawal of nationality There is a growing consensus, based on the development of international human rights law, that statelessness should never result from the deprivation of nationality.88 There are a number of crucial steps that need to be observed preceding any decision with respect to the possible withdrawal of a person’s nationality. In line with international standards on due process, the first step is the full examination of the allegations against the individual concerned, which include the right of the individual to confront the evidence against them and to present evidence on their own behalf, by a competent and independent tribunal responsible for adjudicating culpability for the alleged offense under civil or criminal law. The best practice in this regard is the full respect of due process and full procedural guarantees, including the right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body, access to counsel, and the right to appeal first instance decisions as provided by law. Subsequent to the fair hearing, and once it has been determined that the individual has committed the alleged offense, a determination has to be made by the respective tribunal with regard to the penalties to be imposed in line with criminal and civil law.89 Subsequent to these critical steps that safeguard the right to a fair hearing to reliably adjudicate whether the underlying offense was actually committed, the State can take into consideration whether it considers it absolutely necessary to impose the deprivation of nationality in addition to the civil or criminal penalties to which the individual has already been sentenced. This consideration should be guided, inter alia, by considerations of proportionality, including by examining the impact on the individual and what benefits, if any, the use of nationality deprivation will have for the State. An important element that merits further deliberation is that once a person is deprived of his/her nationality, he/she will no longer be considered by the State as ‘a national under the operation of its law’, which may limit the State’s jurisdiction over the individual and thus potentially hamper its ability to exercise its control over the person and to effectively apply its laws. 37