14 K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION to impose a positive obligation on Contracting States to facilitate the return of every person deprived of citizenship while outside the jurisdiction in order to pursue an appeal against that decision. 58. Secondly, the Court notes that in the present case the applicant was able to judicially review the decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom and in those proceedings one of his main arguments was that his exclusion would prevent him from participating effectively in the appeal against deprivation of citizenship. He was also permitted to raise this argument as a preliminary issue before SIAC. SIAC, having carefully considered the open and closed material before it, concluded that there were a number of means by which the applicant could safely communicate with his lawyers, and that his fears relating to the interception of these communications were, in any case, unfounded (see paragraphs 28-29 above). This conclusion was not inconsistent with the findings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the judicial review proceedings. The High Court did not reach any conclusion on the applicant’s ability to communicate with his lawyers from Sudan, since it found that he could travel to a safe third country (see paragraph 13 above). Insofar as the Court of Appeal considered this point, it noted that the Secretary of State had put forward “a substantial case to the effect that the applicant would be perfectly able to pursue his appeal from Sudan” (see paragraph 16 above). In light of the national courts’ comprehensive and thorough examination of the applicant’s submissions on this factual issue, the Court does not consider itself in a positon to call into question their findings that there did not exist any clear, objective evidence that the applicant in this case was unable to instruct lawyers while outside the jurisdiction. 59. Thirdly, it is apparent from SIAC’s judgment of 22 December 2015 on the substance of the applicant’s case that despite it having found “no good reason why he could not engage in the appeal and fully instruct his lawyers” (see paragraph 31 above), in view of the fact that the Special Advocates were not engaging with the closed national security case, it sought out the most independent and objective evidence in the closed case and adopted particular caution in drawing inferences adverse to the applicant (see paragraph 32 above). However, even following this cautious approach, it found that the closed evidence was “conclusive” (reaching the criminal standard of proof) that the applicant was in Somalia at the relevant time and that he had travelled there in the company of extremists to engage in terrorism-related activities; that from the closed evidence it was “probable” that he fought against AMISOM forces; that it was “highly probable” (also reaching the criminal standard of proof) that his terrorism-related activities were, at least in part, directly involved with Al Shabaab; and that there was conclusive closed evidence (again reaching the criminal standard) that he had established associations with known extremists in the United Kingdom and overseas (see paragraph 32 above).