nationality and the exception therefore applies only to conduct which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of that State, rather than those of other States with which it has friendly relations. The experience of some States indicates that governments do not gain from rendering individuals stateless through the application of this exception, in particular because it may be difficult in practice to expel the persons concerned. Article 8(3)(b): Exception allowing deprivation on the basis of an oath or formal declaration of allegiance to another State, or definite evidence to repudiate allegiance 69. Article 8(3)(b) allows for an exception to the basic rule such that deprivation of nationality may cause statelessness where a person declares allegiance to another State or repudiates his/her allegiance to the Contracting States. This provision appears to be irrelevant in most circumstances, as the only opportunity for an individual to make a formal oath of allegiance to a State is at the final stage of a naturalization procedure, such that statelessness is no longer at issue. It has also been largely superseded by later developments in domestic nationality laws which increasingly place less importance on formal allegiance to the State, in particular due to the marked decline in compulsory military service and the increasing acceptance of dual nationality. Article 9: Deprivation of nationality on the basis of discrimination is prohibited 70. Article 9 forbids Contracting States to deprive any person or group of persons of their nationality on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds. It applies irrespective of whether statelessness would result from the deprivation. The provision was designed to give effect to Article 15 of the UDHR and is complemented by provisions of conventions such as the CERD, CEDAW and CRPD. 71. The line between deprivation on political grounds and deprivation due to conduct inconsistent with the duty of loyalty to the State will not always be clear. However, a consequence of Article 9 is that a State will need to establish that a deprivation decision is not being made on political or other discriminatory grounds. Furthermore, the deprivation must not be based on conduct which is consistent with an individual´s freedom of expression, freedom of assembly or other rights guaranteed under international human rights law. 15