106. Furthermore, the UN Human Rights Council has stated that “loss or deprivation of nationality must meet certain conditions in order to comply with international law, in particular … being proportional to the interest to be protected. 186 They added that “with any decision to deprive a person of nationality, States have a duty to carefully consider the proportionality of this act … . 187 107. The principle of proportionality should be paramount in all decisions on deprivation of nationality188 and the consequences of a decision to deprive a person of his nationality should be assessed against it.189 108. This Principle therefore requires States to carry out an individual assessment to determine, inter alia, that the immediate and long-term impact of deprivation of nationality on the rights of the individual, their family, and on society is proportionate to the legitimate purpose being pursued; the deprivation of nationality is the least intrusive means of achieving the stated legitimate purpose; and the deprivation of nationality is an effective means of achieving the stated legitimate purpose. 109. The question of whether the impact of deprivation of nationality on the rights of the individual(s) concerned is proportionate to the legitimate purpose that is pursued by this measure is an important part of the ‘proportionality test’. The Tunis Conclusions provide further guidance in this regard: “In assessing the impact on the individual, consideration must be given to the strength of the link of the person with the State in question, including birth in the territory, length of residence, family ties, economic activity as well as linguistic and cultural integration. The time that has passed since the act in question is also relevant for the assessment as to whether the gravity of the act justifies deprivation of nationality. The longer the period elapsed since the conduct, the more serious the conduct required to justify deprivation of nationality. Some States therefore provide for a limitation period in respect to the time elapsed between commission of an act and its discovery by the authorities, and between the discovery and the issuance of the deprivation decision.”190 110. A key question in determining the proportionality is “the impact of withdrawal of nationality on the individual’s ability to access and enjoy other human rights. 191 Other relevant considerations include whether the person is in possession of another nationality, where they are, the impact of the deprivation for the individual concerned, and the impact upon their family , the impact of the loss of the right to reside in the country of which the individual held nationality, as well as rights attached to residence.192 In this context, deprivation resulting in statelessness would be 186 UN Human Rights Council, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, A HRC UN Human Rights Council, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, A HRC para 10. 188 ILEC Guidelines (2015), section II. 189 ILEC Guidelines (2015), section I.10. 190 UNHCR, ’Tunis Conclusions‘ , para . 191 UNHCR Guidelines No 5 (2020), para 94. 192 See UNHCR, ’Tunis Conclusions‘ , para , see also UNHRC Guidelines No 5 (2020), para 95. 187 58 . ,