him or her.38 Nor would deprivation for the purpose of denying a national entry into the territory be permissible, given that nationals have the right, enshrined in Article 13(2) of the UDHR, to return to their country of nationality. Deprivation of nationality on discriminatory grounds would also be arbitrary by reason of this principle.39 (3) Finally, and most significantly in the context of the present proceedings, sufficient procedural guarantees and safeguards must be in place to protect against the risk of arbitrariness in the decision-making process. In other words, due process must be respected at all times, as elaborated below. 20. The UN has frequently underlined States’ obligation to observe what it terms “minimum procedural standards”.40 Those standards are “essential to prevent abuse of the law”.41 They apply in all cases, whether or not statelessness is involved.42 There are two minimum requirements: first, the State must issue reasons for its deprivation decision in writing, and secondly, the State must grant the individual concerned a right to an independent review of that decision by a judicial or administrative body.43 The second of those rights finds expression in Article 8(4) of the 1961 Convention (“the right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body”).44 21. As to the content of that guarantee, the following propositions emerge from the case-law, UN materials and commentary: (1) A fair and effective hearing requires a “meaningful review of the substantive issues”.45 (2) The individual concerned must have, at the very least, sufficient information “meaningfully” to contest the facts and arguments of the State in court, in the light of ILC, ‘Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens (with commentaries)’ (2014) II(2) YBILC, p. 13 (Article 8), commentary, para. 1. See also UN Human Rights Committee, ‘CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)’ (1999), para. 21. 38 39 See footnote 15 above. ‘Human Rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/34, 14 December 2009, paras 43 and 63; UN HRC, ‘Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality’, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/13/2, 24 March 2010, para. 10; UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality’, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/20/5, 16 July 2012, para. 10. 40 ‘Human Rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/34, 14 December 2009, para. 43. 41 42 UNHCR, ‘UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5’ (May 2020), para. 100. ‘Arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/34, 26 January 2009, para. 67. 43 See also Article 12 of the European Convention on Nationality (deprivation decisions must “be open to an administrative or judicial review in conformity with [the State’s] internal law”). The UK is not a party to this Convention, but this provision reflects the CIL position by which the UK is bound. See further ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States (with commentaries)’ (1999) II(2) YBILC, p. 38 (Article 17). 44 ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States (with commentaries)’ (1999) II(2) YBILC, p. 38 (Article 17), commentary, para. 2; cited with apparent approval in ‘Arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/34, 26 January 2009, para. 57. 45 8