Meijers Committee standing committee of experts on international immigration, refugee and criminal law nationals who were deprived of their nationality in the Netherlands on account of terrorist activities held a second nationality of a majority Muslim country (see paragraph 4). In this connection it is also relevant that only membership of jihadist armed organisations (as opposed to other ideologies) constitutes a ground for citizenship deprivation.113 Lastly, four-fifths of those who lost their Dutch nationality in relation to terrorist activities were assumed to have Moroccan nationality. A recent report shows that the Dutch intelligence agency (AIVD) made a list of Dutch nationals who travelled to Syria to join the jihad, had dual nationality and who could therefore, in principle, have their nationality withdrawn.114 As dual nationality is no longer registered in the Netherlands (since 2014), the AIVD based its assumption that the persons concerned were Moroccan nationals on the fact that their parents were Moroccan nationals when they acquired Dutch nationality and the knowledge that Moroccan nationality cannot be renounced. This information suggests that Dutch-Moroccan dual nationals were specifically targeted by the authorities when implementing the deprivation of citizenship regime because their dual nationality can be established relatively easily. Such targeting is, however, at odds with Article 1(3) CERD which provides that states may not, in their nationality laws, discriminate against ‘any particular nationality’. Is the differential treatment of (naturalised) dual nationals based on ‘very weighty reasons’? The previous subparagraphs showed that the differential treatment of dual nationals, with regard to deprivation of nationality because of terrorist activities, amounts to direct differential treatment on the ground of nationality and to indirect differential treatment on the ground of ethnic origin. Whereas it is not entirely clear whether differences in treatment between single and dual nationals would be subject to the ‘very weighty reasons’ test, ECtHR case law has clearly established that compelling or very weighty reasons are required to justify differences in treatment based on ethnic origin. In Timishev v. Russia the ECtHR even considered that ‘in any event, […] no difference in treatment which is based exclusively or to a decisive extent on a person’s ethnic origin is capable of being objectively justified in a contemporary democratic society built on the principles of pluralism and respect for different cultures.’115 The laws on citizenship deprivation discussed in this policy brief form part of states’ antiterrorism policies. Where perpetrators of terrorist activities are outside the territory of the state concerned, the withdrawal of their citizenship is designed to make it more difficult for them to return and commit terrorist acts within the territory of that state.116 On a more 113 Decision of the Minister of Justice 2 March 2017, Staatscourant 2017, 13023. V. Bex-Reimers et al (2020), Evaluatie wijziging van de Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap in het belang van de nationale veiligheid, July 2020, p. 41-42. 115 ECtHR 13 December 2005, app.nos 55762/00 and 55974/00, Timishev/Russia, para 58; see also ECtHR (GC) 13 November 2007, app.no. 57325/00, D.H. and others/Czech Republic, para 176 and Biao/Denmark, para 114. 116 T.L. Boekestein & G.-R. de Groot, ‘Discussing the human rights limits on loss of citizenship: a normative-legal perspective on egalitarian arguments regarding Dutch Nationality laws targeting Dutch-Moroccans’, Citizenship Studies 23:4, p. 320-337, at p. 323, https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2019.1616448. 114 23