are not deprived of their nationality arbitrarily or on the basis of disability . Article 9(1) of CEDAW also provides that “States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality. They shall ensure in particular that neither marriage to an alien nor change of nationality by the husband during marriage shall automatically change the nationality of the wife, render her stateless or force upon her the nationality of the husband . Further, alongside Article 7 of CRC setting out a child right to acquire a nationality, Article 8(1) provides that states “undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality[…] as recognized by law without unlawful interference . At the regional level, the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) includes the same provision as the UDHR in Article 20(3).118 Provisions similar to Article 15(2) UDHR are also found in Article 24 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 18 of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, Article 24(2) of the Commonwealth of Independent States Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and Article 4(c) of the ECN. The UN General Assembly has reiterated the importance of the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality by noting that it constitutes a “fundamental principle of international law .119 Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that arbitrary denial or revocation of citizenship might, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under Article 8 of the ECHR because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual.120 67. Deprivation of nationality refers to, as noted in Principle 2.2, any loss, withdrawal, or denial of nationality that was not voluntarily and explicitly requested by the individual. In principle, such deprivation will be considered arbitrary, unless several conditions are met. According to a Secretary General Report: “deprivation of nationality must meet certain conditions in order to comply with international law, in particular the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality. These conditions include serving a legitimate purpose, being the least intrusive instrument to achieve the desired result and being proportional to the interest to be protected.”121 68. Similarly, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in the case of Anudo, provided the following: “International law does not allow, save under very exceptional circumstances, the loss of nationality. The said conditions are: i) they must be founded on clear legal basis; ii) must serve a legitimate purpose that conforms with international law; iii) must be proportionate to the interest protected; iv) must install procedural guarantees which must be respected, allowing the concerned to defend himself before an independent body.”122 118 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has found violations of Article 20(3) ACHR in different cases, e.g. Ivcher-Bronstein v Peru (2001), Series C No. 74, paras 95-96; Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic (2005), Series C No. 130, para 174; Gelman v Uruguay (2011), Series C No. 221, para 128. 119 UN General Assembly, Resolution 50/152: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (9 February 1996), para. 16 120 eg ECtHR, Karassev v Finland (1999), Application no. 31414/96; ECtHR, Genovese v Malta (2011), Application no. 53124/09, para 30; ECtHR, Ramadan v Malta (2016), Application no. 76136/12, para 85. 121 UN Human Rights Council, ’Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, A HRC , para. 4. 122 ACtHPR, Anudo v Tanzania (2018), Application no. 012/2015, para. 79. 44