the Union, might, with regard to the objective pursued by the national legislature, disproportionately affect the normal development of his or her family and professional life from the point of view of EU law. Those consequences cannot be hypothetical or merely a possibility.”199 The competent national authorities or courts should furthermore ensure, as part of this assessment, that the loss of nationality is consistent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and in particular consistent with the right to respect for family life as stated in Article 7 of the Charter. That article is required to be read in conjunction with the obligation to take into consideration the best interests of the child, recognised in Article 24(2) of the Charter.200 Indeed, with regard to minors, the Court statesthat 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 fails to meet the child’s best interests as enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter because of the consequences of that loss for the minor under EU law.201 On the rights of children, please also see Principle 9.7 below. 115. In addition to sources mentioned in the Commentary on Principle 7.4 above, it has been emphasized that “deprivation of nationality must be the least intrusive instrument of those that might achieve the desired result, and [it] must be proportional to the interest to be protected .202 Also, the HRC in General Comment No. on Article ICCPR held that: “restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instruments amongst those, which might achieve the desired result .203 116. When considering the proportionality of a measure, it should be kept in mind whether the means are rationally connected to the objective of the measure. In particular, “ the right should be impaired as little as possible to achieve the objective; and there should be proportionality between the deleterious effect on the right and the salutary effects of the measure in furthering its objective. In this respect, it will be important that authorities avoid unacceptably broad application of the measure, an application that places an excessive or unreasonable burden on an individual or entity. Authorities therefore must not destroy the essence of the right in question, and henceforth impair the right as little as possible, as well as to avoid being arbitrary or unfair, or making decisions based on irrational considerations.”204 117. The principle of proportionality also requires that deprivation of nationality is effective in achieving the stated legitimate purpose: “ a ccording to the principle of proportionality, a measure must be necessary, effective, as well as proportional to the goal to be achieved .205 Effectiveness of deprivation of nationality 199 CJEU, M.G. Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (2019), Case C-221/17, para 44. CJEU, M.G. Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (2019), Case C-221/17, para 45. 201 CJEU, M.G. Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (2019), Case C-221/17, para 47. 202 ILEC Guidelines (2015), section I.10. 203 Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No. : Freedom of movement article ’ CCPR C 204 Glion Recommendations (2019), p. 9-10. 205 ILEC Guidelines (2015), section I.10. 200 60 Rev. Add. , para .