In its 2015 ruling on a case against Sudan, the African Committee of Experts recommended that Sudan repeal amendments to its nationality Act that withdrew Sudanese nationality from people of South Sudanese origin, without ensuring that they had in fact acquired the nationality of South Sudan, and that the government should “ensure that rules governing citizenship acquisition and deprivation apply equally to all without discrimination based on, inter alia, ethnicity, and protect against statelessness.” Even national courts in countries that include such explicit provisions within their nationality law have issued judgments that conform with this expectation to the extent legally possible.  In Uganda, where the constitution provides for jus soli citizenship only for those who are members of one of a list of “indigenous communities” the High Court has applied the principle of continuity of existing citizenship in order to confirm the rights to citizenship of Ugandans of Somali origin (not one of the listed communities) who can show that they were, or are descendants of a person who was, attributed citizenship automatically under the legal provisions in force before the adoption of the current constitution.285 There is more ambivalence in treaty body commentary on preferential access to acquisition of nationality by naturalisation (rather than in attribution or recognition of nationality from birth), but the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Human Rights Committee, and the Committee on the Rights of the Child have all expressed disquiet about discrimination in naturalisation procedures (in Korea, Japan, Panama, Kuwait, and other cases).286 Affinity-based naturalisation preferences, common in Hispanic countries, have been accepted by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (with limits),287 but criticised by the UN bodies in the case of Israel’s law of return, and a Qatari provision favouring naturalisation of foreign nationals from Arab states.288 The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has accepted the idea of kin-based preferences in some circumstances, but placed restrictions on their use.289 Preferential access to nationality may also be perfectly acceptable—or even called for as a remedy—where it is designed to redress past injustices or displacement. The drafting history of CERD shows that exactly such forms of preference were envisaged as falling within state discretion.290 Compensatory grant of nationality to redress past wrongs has been employed in some former Soviet states of Eastern and Central Europe.291 Similarly, immediately after gaining independence, Namibia adopted a law providing for privileged access to Namibian citizenship for descendants of those driven from the territory by the German colonial authorities in the early 20th century.292 In general, it has been argued by scholars that: [In] the context of racial discrimination in nationality laws, and against the background of the peremptory prohibition of systemic racial discrimination, the effect of Articles 1(1) and 1(3) of ICERD is that state regulation of nationality must not discriminate, whether directly or indirectly, on the basis of race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin in the attribution, regulation or deprivation of citizenship, except in narrowly circumscribed situations where differential access to citizenship is applied pursuant to a legitimate aim, and is proportional to the achievement of this aim. This limited exception is logically applicable only in relation to acquisition of or access to citizenship and not deprivation.293 285 Abdu Abucar Hussein and 7 others v. Attorney General, supra 151. Cf the similar position of the Equal Opportunities Commission of Uganda in relation to people of mixed race, Yasin Omar v. Attorney General, Uganda, EOC Reference No. EOC/CR/010/2016, 29 September 2017, https://citizenshiprightsafrica.org/ uganda-yasin-omar-vs-attorney-general/. 286 Peter J. Spiro, “A New International Law of Citizenship”, American Journal of International Law Vol. 105, no. 4 (2011), pp.694–746, at pp. 727-730. 287 Advisory Opinion on Naturalisation Provisions of Costa Rica. 288 Spiro, “A New International Law of Citizenship”, supra n 286, pp. 727-730. Bolzano/Bozen Recommendations on National Minorities in Inter-State Relations, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 2 October 2008, para. 11, https://www.osce.org/hcnm/bolzano-bozen-recommendations. 289 290 Michelle Foster and Timnah Rachel Baker, “Racial Discrimination in Nationality Laws”, Columbia Journal of Race and Law, Vol. 11, no. 1 (2021), pp. 83–146, at pp.108–14. 291 Andre Liebich, “Introduction: Altneuländer or the Vicissitudes of Citizenship in the New EU States”, in Citizenship Policies in the New Europe, ed. Rainer Bauböck, Bernhard Perchinig, and Wiebke Sievers, 2nd ed., IMISCOE Research (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009). 292 Namibian Citizenship (Special Conferment) Act No.14 of 1991; Namibian Citizenship (Second) Special Conferment Act, No.6 of 2015. 293 Foster and Baker, “Racial Discrimination in Nationality Laws”, supra n 290, p.144. U N H C R | L I T I G AT I N G T H E R I G H T T O A N AT I O N A L I T Y: A G U I D E F O R P R AC T I T I O N E R S 71