between its nationals, regardless of whether they acquired nationality at birth or subsequently, and whether they have one or multiple nationalities”.27 Issue II The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality 18. According to the UDHR, “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of [their] nationality”, which is a fundamental principle of international law closely linked with the right to a nationality. At a minimum, deprivation of nationality is arbitrary if it is not prescribed by law, is not the least intrusive means and proportionate to achieving a legitimate aim, or if it takes place without due process.28 According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), “[i]n determining arbitrariness, the Court should examine whether the impugned measure was in accordance with the law; whether it was accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards, including whether the person deprived of citizenship was allowed the opportunity to challenge the decision before courts affording the relevant guarantees; and whether the authorities acted diligently and swiftly.” 29 The decision should also consider the consequences of citizenship stripping for the applicant. 19. Furthermore, “deprivation of nationality must be the least intrusive means and effective means of achieving the stated legitimate purpose”.30 These are key principles of human rights law. In debates around the introduction of Article 14(4) DNA concerns were raised about its necessity and effectiveness. The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights also pointed out that “since withdrawal of Dutch citizenship is limited to persons who have dual or multiple nationality, the measure makes only a very limited contribution to enhancing national security”.31 20. The aforementioned comprehensive evaluations of Article 14(4) DNA by the CTIVD and WODC provided no evidence of the effectiveness of the measure. On the contrary, the CTIVD reiterates that it is “uncertain whether the measure will have the desired effect of preventing return of foreign fighters”.32 What these evaluations do show is that: • The OM views deprivation of Dutch nationality as an encroachment on prosecution interests and raised objections in all cases in which there had not yet been a criminal conviction; • Deprivation of nationality does not guarantee that the person will not return: there are two cases in which a person whose nationality had been deprived was able to return to the Netherlands because Turkey unilaterally decided to remove them and deport them directly to the Netherlands.33 The measure of Article 14(4) DNA does not, therefore, constitute a proportionate and necessary means for achieving its purpose. 27 ibid, Principle 6.2. UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5: Loss and Deprivation of Nationality under Articles 5-9 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (2020) HCR/GS/20/05, paras 91, 94. 29 ECtHR 22 December 2020, Usmanov v. Russsia, Application no. 43936/18, para 63. 30 Communication by UN Mandate Holders and Experts to the Netherlands on the case of Fatima Habitat (8 December 2021) Ref UA NLD 4/2021, p. 7, https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=26814. See also ibid, Principles 7.5.2 & 7.5.3; CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 ICCPR (Freedom of Movement) (1999) CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, para 14; UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5: Loss and Deprivation of Nationality under Articles 5-9 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (2020) HCR/GS/20/05, paras 91, 94. 31 College voor de Rechten van de Mens, ‘Advies conceptwetsvoorstel intrekken Nederlanderschap’ (2015), https://mensenrechten.nl/nl/publicatie/35355. 32 CTIVD, ‘Toezichtsrapport. Over het handelen van de AIVD in het kader van intrekking van het Nederlanderschap in het belang van de nationale veiligheid’ (2020). 33 See also ISI, ‘Deprivation of nationality as a national security measure in the Netherlands’ (2021), https://files.institutesi.org/Deprivation_of_Nationality_the_Netherlands.pdf. 28 6