Definitions of “Loss” and “Deprivation” of Nationality Distinction between “loss” and “deprivation” of nationality 9. The 1961 Convention uses the expression “loss of nationality” (“perte de la nationalité” in French) in Articles 5-7 to describe withdrawal of nationality which is automatic, by operation of law (“ex lege”). The term “deprivation” (“privation” in French) is used in the Convention in Article 8 to describe situations where the withdrawal is initiated by the authorities of the State. UDHR Article 15 forbids “arbitrary deprivation” and makes no mention of loss of nationality. However, resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council clearly establish that “deprivation” in the UDHR also includes arbitrary ex lege loss of nationality.3 10. In these Conclusions, “withdrawal of nationality” will be used in a broad sense to refer to both loss and deprivation of nationality. What types of acts qualify as “loss” or “deprivation”? 11. Articles 5-9 of the 1961 Convention address all situations in which individuals who were considered nationals of a State under the operation of its law are no longer so considered due to automatic loss of nationality or a decision of nationality authorities. Much of the meeting focused on loss and deprivation through formal legal acts of the State but it was also agreed that the scope of the 1961 Convention and related human rights provisions includes situations in which individuals who were previously documented as nationals are denied all identity documents which prove nationality. This includes situations in which there is no formal act of the State but the practice of the authorities competent for nationality clearly shows that they have ceased to consider a particular individual (or group) as a national; for example where authorities fail to issue or renew documents, but do not provide any explanation for this omission. In addition, actions by officials that do not have formal legal authorisation, such as confiscation or destruction of identity documents and/or expulsion from the territory, together with statement by authorities that a person is not a national, would also be evidence of withdrawal of nationality. 12. Where a State repeals or restricts with retroactive effect a legislative ground for acquisition of nationality, persons who possessed the nationality of the State concerned may be deemed by the State never to have acquired its nationality. The effect is that the nationality of these persons is withdrawn. The same applies for loss or deprivation of nationality in a concrete case with retroactive effect (e.g. deprivation of nationality due to fraud during the naturalisation procedure with retroactivity to the moment of naturalisation). Participants agreed that such withdrawal is still loss or deprivation rather than non-acquisition of nationality. These situations therefore fall under the Articles 5-8 of the 1961 Convention, a conclusion supported by the travaux préparatoires. 13. The same conclusion is to be drawn in all cases where a State ex post claims that the conditions for acquisition were never fulfilled, for example where it is established that the 3 Reference was made to the manner in which Article 15 of the UDHR is viewed by the UN Human Rights Council in its Resolutions on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality, the most recent of which is A/HRC/RES/20/5 of 2012. 4