not to be ‘in accordance with the law’ in that it lacked the necessary standards of foreseeability and accessibility. 167 In any ordinary case, this lack of sufficient legal basis would have suffice for a measure to be found to violate Article 8, however, ‘given the widespread repercussions of the “erasure” ’, the Court chose to examine also whether the measure pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate to it. It found the absence of regularization of the residence status of former SFRY citizens and the prolonged impossibility of obtaining valid residence permits not to be ‘necessary in a democratic society’ in order to achieve the legitimate aim of the protection of Slovenia’s national security.168 Thirdly, the Court found the government of Slovenia to have failed to establish adequate and effective remedies available to the applicants under Article 13 ECHR in order to redress violation of Article 8 ECHR (ie, individual constitutional appeals were denied to them).169 Finally, considering the importance of the discrimination issue in the case, the Court also discussed Article 14 ECHR. It noted that, whilst the Aliens Act regulated the status of citizens of states other than the former SFRY (‘real’ aliens), it failed to do the same for citizens of other SFRY republics who were residing in Slovenia, thereby creating a ‘legal vacuum’ that resulted in the erasure of this latter group and their unlawful stay in Slovenia. 170 The Court found this distinction to lack any objective and reasonable justification; these requirements must be interpreted as strictly as possible when the difference in treatment is based on race, colour or ethnic origin.171 For the Court, ‘a failure to apply for citizenship cannot be considered a reasonable ground for depriving a group of aliens of their residence permits’.172 Thus, arbitrary deprivation of legal status or citizenship was found to breach Article 8 ECHR because of the impact of such denial on the private life and/or family life of an individual. In addition, arbitrary deprivation was found to be discriminatory and, therefore, in breach of Article 14 because persons in relevantly similar situations were being treated differently, without an objective and reasonable justification.173 In sum, the European Court of Human Rights treats arbitrary deprivation of nationality as a very serious violation of human rights that requires States parties to the ECHR to take positive and non-discriminatory action; the right to a nationality is an essential and practical element of one’s legal identity. In particular, the Court requires States to ensure (actively) that persons deprived of nationality are granted the necessary documents allowing them to Ibid, para.346. Ibid, paras.359-361. 169 Ibid, para.371. 170 Ibid, para.390. 171 Ibid, para.386. 172 Ibid, para.393. See also para.357. 173 Pursuant to Article 46 ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights ordered that the ‘Government should, within one year, set up an ad hoc domestic compensation scheme’, Kuric, para.415. 167 168 30