28 RAMADAN v. MALTA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION right to enter one’s own country, like Article 5 (d) (iii) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (adopted in 1965 and entered into force in 1969)15, Articles 12 (4), 23 (4) and 26 of the ICCPR16 and Articles 3 (2), 5 and 12 (1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted in 1981 and entered into force in 1986)17, have also been interpreted as protecting a right to citizenship and proscribing the arbitrary deprivation of citizenship. The right to citizenship or nationality implies the right of each individual to acquire, change and retain a nationality18. Furthermore, anti-discrimination principles make it clear that denying citizenship to individuals on the basis of their gender, ethnicity, religion or other status is arbitrary and therefore impermissible. In terms of the substance of the right, a State cannot discriminate amongst its nationals on the basis of whether they hold their citizenship by birth or acquired it subsequently. As the United Nations Secretary-General’s recent report on the arbitrary deprivation of nationality of children put it, “The arbitrary deprivation of nationality of children is in itself a human rights violation, with statelessness its possible and most extreme consequence. International human rights law is not premised on the nationality of the person but rather on the dignity that is equally inherent to all human beings. In practice, however, those who 15. The Convention has 177 parties, including Malta. See paragraphs 13-17 of Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), General Recommendation XXX on Discrimination Against Non Citizens, 1 October 2002. 16. In Borzov v. Estonia, Communication No. 1136/2002, 26 July 2004, the Human Rights Committee did not find that there was a violation of Article 26 of the Covenant on account of the refusal, on grounds of national security, of the Estonian authorities to grant citizenship to the author, who was allegedly stateless. He had a residence permit and continued to receive his pension while living in Estonia. In its decision, emphasis was laid on the fact that the author’s application was duly reviewed by the national courts. In Stewart v. Canada, Communication No. 538/1993, 1 November 1996, it had held that “The language of article 12, paragraph 4, permits a broader interpretation, moreover, that might embrace other categories of long-term residents, particularly stateless persons arbitrarily deprived of the right to acquire the nationality of the country of such residence.” This same interpretation was confirmed in paragraph 20 of General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement), 2 November 1999, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9. On the States parties’ obligation under Article 23 (4) to ensure that the matrimonial regime contains equal rights and obligations for both spouses with regard to capacity to transmit to children the parent’s nationality and that no sex-based discrimination occurs in respect of the acquisition or loss of nationality by reason of marriage, paragraph 25 of General Comment No. 28: Article 3 (The Equality of Rights Between Men and Women), 29 March 2000, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10. 17. The Convention has 53 parties. See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Malawi African Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, Collectif des Veuves et Ayant-droit et Association Mauritanienne des droits de l’homme v. Mauritania, nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93,164/97 – 196/97 and 210/98, 11 May 2000, § 126, and John K. Modise v. Botswana (no. 97/93) (2000), 6 November 2000, § 88. 18. UN Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: report of the Secretary-General, 14 December 2009, A/HRC/13/34, para. 21, p. 6.