A/HRC/25/28 the person concerned is left stateless.23 However, loss or deprivation of nationality can only be justified where the fraud or misrepresentation was perpetrated for the purpose of acquiring nationality and was material to its acquisition.24 As with any decision to deprive a person of a nationality, States have a duty to carefully consider the proportionality of this act, especially where statelessness results. The nature or gravity of the fraud or misrepresentation must be weighed against the consequences of denationalization.25 In this context, considerations such as the person’s links with the State, including the length of time that has elapsed between acquisition of nationality and discovery of fraud also need to be taken into account. 11. Fraud appears to be the most common ground for loss or deprivation of nationality in the domestic legislation of States. Most nationality laws which provide for the deprivation of nationality on the ground of fraud allow for this even if it leads to statelessness. Legislative safeguards against statelessness which can often be found in respect of other grounds for loss or deprivation of nationality are notably absent in this context.26 However, in what should be considered as good practice, many States have explicitly limited the period following acquisition of nationality within which it may be withdrawn if fraud or misrepresentation is established. Acts seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State 12. Where a person has committed acts seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State, he or she may be deemed to have breached the duty of loyalty which stems from nationality. In consequence, States may provide for the deprivation of nationality, be it as a form of punishment or as a response to the apparently broken bond of allegiance. The European Convention on Nationality prohibits deprivation of nationality on this ground if it leads to statelessness. The 1961 Convention accepts that contracting States may retain the power to deprive people of nationality on this ground even if it leads to statelessness, but only if their law already provided for this at the moment of accession and a declaration was made to that effect. A clear majority of States parties to the 1961 Convention have not invoked this option and do not deprive a person of nationality on this ground if this leads to statelessness. As an exception to the general rule that statelessness is to be avoided, the terms should also be construed narrowly.27 13. Many States provide for deprivation of nationality in response to acts seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State and often a safeguard against statelessness is absent. The phrasing of this ground for deprivation of nationality actually varies significantly in domestic laws. Some, for instance, require that a person be convicted of a crime or offence which endangers the security of the State, while others allow nationality to be withdrawn if this is deemed to be in the public interest, conducive to the public good or justified by national security considerations.28 In response to growing concern around terrorism, a number of States have expanded the powers of deprivation of nationality for 23 24 25 26 27 28 1961 Convention, art. 8, para. 2(b); European Convention on Nationality, art. 7, para. 1(b). UNHCR Expert Meeting, see footnote 12 above; submission from Denmark. See footnote 9 above. Compare EUDO Citizenship analysis of safeguards against statelessness in 36 European countries in the context of fraudulent acquisition of nationality (mode “S13”) with those in respect of other grounds for loss or deprivation, available from http://eudo-citizenship.eu/databases/protectionagainst-statelessness. See, for instance, objections lodged by other States against the Declaration entered by Tunisia, which was considered to go beyond the terms of the permitted exception. Submissions from, inter alia, Moldova, Qatar and Asylum Aid, regarding the United Kingdom legislative framework. 7