the identity of the child, such measures are unlikely to adhere to this standard. Depriving a child under 18 of nationality could therefore be considered contrary to the CRC. In cases where statelessness ensues, the consequences of the lack of a nationality are negative to such an extent that the African Committee on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) recognized in Nubian Minors that “in sum, being stateless as a child is generally antithesis to the best interests of children .309 176. Preserving a child’s nationality or depriving them of a nationality, while depriving the parent, can have an impact on private and family life (see also Principle 9.7) and the best interests of the child. This should therefore be taken into account in an individual examination of the child’s deprivation of nationality as spelled out in Tjebbes and Others v. Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken: “As for minors, the competent administrative and judicial authorities must also take into account, in the context of their individual examination, possible circumstances from which it is apparent that the loss of […] nationality by the minor concerned, which the national legislature has attached to the loss of […] nationality by one of his or her parents in order to preserve unity of nationality within the family, fails to meet the child’s best interests as enshrined in Article 2 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the EU] because of the consequences of that loss for the minor from the point of view of EU law. 177. The relevance of the best interests of the child, regardless of the actions of their parents, is thus paramount in any decision regarding them. This has also been confirmed by the ECtHR in the case of Mennesson v. France. Here, the Court ruled that, although the parents had chosen to break the law (in that case by using surrogacy while prohibited under French law), the effects of the State’s denial of certain elements of the children’s identity not only affected the parents, but also the children. As such, “a serious question arises at to the compatibility of that situation with the child’s best interests, respect for which must guide any decision in their regard .310 178. It is thus important to recognise that children are persons in their own right. As such, actions on the part of parents or family members should not negatively affect the child and his or her rights. This notion is included in Article 2(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires States to “take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members. Consequently, should a parent be deprived of their nationality, this should not result in the derivative loss of nationality of the child. Similarly, a child should not be denied to acquire a nationality on the basis of their parents’ actions, for instance where parents have moved to conflict zones and/or have been associated with terrorist organisations. 309 310 ACERWC, Children of Nubian descent in Kenya v Kenya (2011), Communication no. 002/Com/002/2009, para 46. ECtHR, Mennesson v France (2014), Application no. 65192/1, para 99. 85