3.2 and Principle 7.1). Articles 5 through 8 of the 1961 Convention53 also forbids the loss of nationality where it causes statelessness. Specifically, Article 7(6) states: “Except in the circumstances mentioned in this Article, a person shall not lose the nationality of a Contracting State, if such loss would render him stateless, notwithstanding that such loss is not expressly prohibited by any other provision of this Convention.” 37. The 1961 Convention and the ECN do provide for limited exceptions to this general principle of avoidance of statelessness. Both instruments allow deprivation of nationality to result in statelessness in the specific case of fraudulent acquisition of nationality. However, even in such cases deprivation of nationality must not violate other international law standards, requiring, for instance, that a proportionality test be applied and that deprivation is based on a decision for each person individually (see also Principles 6-9).54 38. The 1961 Convention also includes a provision on nationality deprivation even if statelessness results, if a person rendered service to another State or conducted him or herself in a manner that is prejudicial to the vital interests of the State.55 Contracting States may only retain the power to deprive people of nationality even if it leads to statelessness in accordance with these exceptions if their law already provided for such deprivation at the moment of accession and a declaration was made to that effect. Importantly, the “proportional relationship of declarations submitted in relation to the total amount of State Parties has been characterized by a continuous decline since the Convention’s entry into force in .56 As of March 2020, just 16% of State parties to the 1961 Convention had made this declaration, which means that the vast majority of Contracting States have committed to refrain from depriving a person of nationality on this ground if this would lead to statelessness. Moreover, these exceptions employ restrictive language and as exceptions to a general rule they are to be interpreted narrowly.57 39. Developments in human rights law have considerably narrowed further the circumstances in which these exceptions may be applied. In all cases, consideration is to be given to the person´s responsibility for the act(s) which provide the basis for the deprivation as well as the circumstances in which they were committed, in line with the general requirement of proportionality. Further, even States that do invoke this option are restricted by other obligations under international law, as set out in these Principles. 53 The discussion of the provisions of the 1961 Convention in this commentary only relates to the specific context of citizenship stripping as a national security measure. For a more general discussion of the provisions on deprivation of nationality of the 1961 Convention, please refer to UNHCR, ’Tunis Conclusions‘ . 54 ILEC Guidelines (2015), p. 6, para 4. . ILEC Project, Guidelines Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship ILEC Guidelines , available at: http://www.ilecproject.eu/sites/default/files/GUIDELINES%20INVOLUNTARY%20LOSS%20OF%20EUROPEAN%20CITIZENSHIP%20.pdf. The “ILEC project , led by the University of Maastricht from -2015, culminated in the publication of a set of Guidelines on Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship (ILEC Guidelines). These guidelines offer a useful example for the development of principles relating to arbitrary deprivation of nationality, but relate specifically to the European Union context, drawing on norms, jurisprudence and practices that may not have global applicability. 55 Art. 8(3) of the 1961 Convention. 56 L. Bucken and R. de Groot, ‘Deprivation of nationality under article of the Convention on the reduction of statelessness’ , Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 25(1) pp. 38 51, p. 42. 57 UNHRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’ A HRC , para . 33