Chapter 2 The Right to Nationality and Judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court | 101 person stateless can serve a legitimate purpose. 236 However, even in such cases, the loss or deprivation of nationality must satisfy the principle of proportionality. The consequences of depriving a person of his or her nationality must be carefully weighed, taking into account the seriousness of the conduct or crime that is the reason for the decision to withdraw nationality. In view of the serious consequences that deprivation of nationality has when it results in statelessness, it is difficult to justify how the loss or deprivation of nationality is proportional to the situation that prompted it. 237 234. The Commission observes that any interference in a person’s enjoyment of nationality has a significant impact on his or her exercise of other human rights. Hence, any measure that leads to the loss or deprivation of nationality must satisfy certain conditions that international law establishes, especially the provisions pertaining to the prohibition of the arbitrary deprivation of nationality. In order for a measure not to constitute an arbitrary deprivation of nationality, it has to serve a legitimate end, be the least onerous measure to achieve the desired result, be proportional to the interests to be protected and not discriminatory. The restrictions or requirements established to obtain nationality must be subject to strict principles, such as necessity and proportionality; in other words, the restrictions must be geared toward satisfying a compelling public interest and must be proportional to the interests that justify it. Furthermore, these restrictions must be prescribed by law, must not be discriminatory and must serve a legitimate end. 238 235. In effect, the rights contained in the international human rights treaties can be subject to regulations and restrictions, provided the formal and substantive limits that those treaties establish are respected. In others, the legitimacy of the ends that those restrictions are intended to accomplish must be demonstrated. 239 Here, Article 30 of the American Convention establishes the following: The restrictions that, pursuant to this Convention, may be placed on the enjoyment or exercise of the rights or freedoms recognized herein may not be applied except in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established. 240 236 237 238 239 240 1961 Convention, Art. 7, paragraphs 4 and 5, and Article 8, paragraphs 2 and 3. European Court of Justice of the European Union, case C-135/08, Janko Rottman v. Freistaat Bayern, March 2, 2010. IACHR, Application filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Case 12,189 (Dominican Republic) in the case of the girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico, July 11, 2003, par. 51. See, I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, of November 13, 1985. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), par. 37. The Court has written in this regard that: “Article 30 cannot be regarded as a kind of general authorization to establish new restrictions to the rights protected by the Convention, additional to those permitted under the rules governing each one of these. The purpose of the article, on the contrary, is to impose an additional requirement to legitimize individually authorized restrictions.” Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. “The Word ‘Laws’ in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights”, par. 17. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | IACHR