that: “A State shall not make its national an alien, by deprivation of nationality, for the sole purpose of expelling him or her .245 145. Furthermore, the prohibition is also related to the right of individuals to enter and remain in their own country.246 It was stated by the HRC in General Comment No. 27 that “liberty of movement is an indispensable condition for the free development of a person .247 As such, it is every person’s prerogative to enter, remain in, and return to their own country, regardless of whether or not they have been stripped of their nationality. Under no circumstance may a person be arbitrarily deprived of their right to enter, return and remain in their own country. Most importantly, this right implies that States are not permitted under international law to, by depriving a person of their nationality, violate their right to remain in their own country or prevent them from returning to their own country. In General Comment No. , the HRC stated that “a State Party most not, by stripping a person of nationality or by expelling an individual to a third country, arbitrarily prevent this person from returning to his or her own country .248 This means that by depriving a person of their nationality and expelling them as a result, a State is, by definition, arbitrarily denying that person the right to return and remain in theirown country, amounting to a violation of international law. This is further articulated by Article 8 of the ILC Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens, which provides that “a State shall not make its national an alien, by deprivation of nationality, for the sole purpose of expelling him or her . 146. The rights contained in this Principle can be exercised even by those who have been deprived of a nationality, as is in line with the definition of ‘one’s own country’. The concept of ‘one’s own country’ is not synonymous with the concept of ‘one’s country of nationality’, but rather is broader in scope. According to the HRC, “it embraces, at the very least, an individual who, because of his or her special ties to or claims in relation to a given country, cannot be considered a mere alien .249 This means that the concept also applies to nationals who have been stripped of their nationality, as they can have special ties to the country whose nationality they have been deprived of. According to the HRC in Nystrom v. Australia: “[…] there are factors other than nationality which may establish close and enduring connections between a person and a country, connections which may be stronger than those of nationality. The words ‘his own country’ invite consideration of such matters as long standing residence, close personal and family ties and intentions to remain, as well as to the absence of such ties elsewhere.”250 In accordance with this Principle, dual nationals should not be expelled from ‘their own country’. If they are deprived of the nationality of the country which is ‘their own country’ due to ‘close and 245 These Draft Articles were welcomed by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 69/119 of 10 December 2014 (UN Doc A/RES/69/119). See also the preparatory work of the International Law Commission in which it was agreed that “States should not use denationalization as a means of circumventing their obligations under the principle of the non-expulsion of aliens . Emphasis added, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2008 Volume II Part Two, Chapter VIII, para. 171. 246 On the existing framework of corollary and related rights, see J.-M. Henckaerts, Mass Expulsion in Modern International Law and Practice Martinus Nijhoff Publishers p. , as well as L. Sohn and T. Buergenthal, ‘The Movement of Persons Across Borders’ ASIL Studies in Transnational Legal Policy No. 23 (1992), pp. 85-86. 247 Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No. : Freedom of movement article ’ CCPR C Rev. Add. , para. . 248 Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No. ’ CCPR C Rev. Add. , para. . 249 Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No. ’ CCPR C Rev. Add. , para. . 250 Human Rights Committee, Nystrom v Australia, Communication no. 1557/2007 (18 July 2011) CCPR/C/102/D/1557/2007, para. 7.4. 72