Second, the order of withdrawing nationality was in violation of due process, which is essential to “prevent abuse of the law” and to ensure that “decisions on nationality matters do not contain any element of arbitrariness”.52 None of the persons concerned were informed in advance of the existence of proceedings against them for “treason against the homeland” and deprivation of their nationality, nor were they given the opportunity to be heard and to provide facts, arguments and evidence in their defence. Notification of the initiation of proceedings, access to legal counsel and a fair hearing are minimum procedural safeguards that must be respected in such cases.53 Furthermore, the decisions on the loss of nationality do not contain a statement of the factual, evidentiary and legal grounds on which the judges based their decision to impose this sanction. The absence of a reasoned decision demonstrates a blatant disrespect for a guarantee that is linked not only to the safeguarding of due process, but also to the proper administration of justice.54 Thirdly, the deprivation of nationality was based on discriminatory grounds, linked to the exercise of fundamental rights by the persons concerned, including freedom of expression, freedom of association, the expression of political opinions, as well as the right to defend human rights. The Office of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders recognised the discriminatory motivation behind this measure, underlining that it was “a very severe form of persecution, aimed at limiting their capacity for action, destroying their social fabric, as well as affecting their physical and mental health”.55 Finally, the judicial decisions of 10 and 15 February rendered most of the 317 persons sanctioned stateless, in clear violation of the commitment made by the Nicaraguan state in 2013, with the ratification of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. According to Article 8.1 of the Convention, states must not deprive a person of their nationality if such deprivation would render them stateless. Under international human rights law, any deprivation of nationality that leads to statelessness is generally considered to be arbitrary.56 3. Civil death: impacts of statelessness on the enjoyment of rights As a political and legal bond linking individuals to a state, nationality is the basis of their political and civil status.57 For this reason, nationality is considered a “prerequisite” for the exercise of other rights.58 When a state arbitrarily deprives a person of their nationality, it renders them a “non-citizen” in relation to it,59 and places them in a situation of extreme vulnerability with regard to the full enjoyment of their rights.60 After rendering them stateless, the Ortega-Murillo regime aggravated the effects of the arbitrary deprivation of nationality through a series of decisions aimed at bringing about the civil death of the persons concerned. On the basis of the loss of their status as Nicaraguan nationals, the authorities annulled their civil identity records and decreed the loss of their civil, political, social and property rights. These measures have left them in a situation of “legal non-existence”, and have systematically affected their status as rights holders, as well as their capacity to exercise rights and incur obligations. 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Distr. GENERAL HCR/GS/20/05, May 2020, para. 93. 52. U  N Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, Report of the Secretary-General, 14 December 2009, A/HRC/13/34, para. 43. 53. In the words of the Inter-American Court, “any person against whom deprivation of nationality proceedings are instituted must be guaranteed due process in order to avoid arbitrariness and ensure that the persons concerned are in a position to defend their rights”. I/A Court H.R, Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, Judgment of 31 August 2022, paras 93 and 97. 54. Ibid, para. 68. 55. U  nofficial translation. Office of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Communication to the State of Nicaragua, 18 September 2023, Ref: AL NIC 3/2023, p. 8. 56. UN Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, Report of the Secretary-General, 14 December 2009, A/HRC/13/34, para. 27. 57. I/A Court H.R., Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 28 August 2014, para. 255. In the same vein, I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, 19 January 1984, para. 32. 58. Ibid. 59. U  N Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, Report of the Secretary-General, 14 December 2009, A/HRC/13/34, para. 47. 60. I/A Court H.R., Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 28 August 2014, para. 257. 7 FIDH - Exile and civil death