SAHNI ARTICLE 3.3.21 (WORD) (DO NOT DELETE) 126 Gonzaga Journal of International Law 5/6/2021 7:21 PM Vol. 24:2 It omitted to conduct DNA tests to confirm the identity of Anudo’s father.128 Two years later, the Minister of Home Affairs and Immigration sent Anudo a notice of “prohibited immigrant”129 and revoked the Tanzanian citizenship.130 The immigration authorities expelled Anudo to Kenya131 without any further due process or investigations.132 Kenya did not recognize Anudo as a national and labelled him as having ‘irregular status.’133 It returned Anudo to Tanzania, which barred his entry. Anudo was redirected to Sirari, a “no-man’s land” border between the two countries.134 The ACtHPR identified that arbitrary nationality revocations involve the breach of three fundamental rights. These fundamental rights are the right to nationality and the right not to be deprived arbitrarily; the right not to be arbitrarily expelled; and the right to have a court hear the grievance.135 “International Law does not allow, save under very exceptional situations, the loss of nationality. The said conditions are: i) they must be founded on clear legal basis; ii) must serve a legitimate purpose that conforms with International Law; iii) must be proportionate to the interest protected; iv) must install procedural guaranties which must be respected, allowing the concerned to defend himself before an independent body.”136 The results of a DNA test would have provided direct confirmation of Anudo’s identity and grounds for retaining or revoking his nationality. 137 Furthermore, Tanzania should have ascertained that Anudo was not a Kenyan citizen before it ordered his expulsion.138 The resultant deportation to Kenya and Sirari rendered Anudo stateless.139 Tanzania was responsible for making Anudo stateless even though it has not ratified the 1954 or 1961 Statelessness Conventions. It breached Article 15(2) of the UDHR140 and Articles 7 and 14 of the ICCPR141 when it expelled and deported Anudo. The Court ordered 128. 129. 130. Id. ¶¶ 65, 85-86. Immigration Act 1995 (Tas.) ss 10(f)(g), 11, 12. Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania, No. 012/2015, Judgment, ¶ 64 (Afr. Ct. on Hum. and Peoples’ Rts. Mar. 22, 2018) 131. Id. ¶ 65. 132. Id. ¶ 108. 133. Id. ¶¶ 11, 14. 134. Id. ¶ 4. 135. Id. ¶¶ 61, 132. 136. Id. ¶ 79, citing U.N. Secretary General, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/25/28 (Dec. 19, 2013). 137. Id. ¶¶ 86-87. 138. Id. ¶¶ 102-03. 139. Id. ¶ 78 (stating “[h]owever, the power to deprive a person of his or her nationality has to be exercised in accordance with international standards, to avoid the risk of statelessness.”). 140. Id. ¶ 88. 141. Id. ¶¶ 95-96, 106, 115, & 132.