Part I. Introduction and Context (s)he is stateless.166 Dependent on the ratification of the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, the CCPR can also examine individual complaints on possible violations of the ICCPR by states. The CCPR has for instance dealt with a case on the refusal to grant nationality through naturalization: Q v. Denmark.167 Another unprecedented case involving statelessness and Article 24(3) of the ICCPR is that of DZ against the Netherlands.168 The Netherlands refuses to register DZ, who was born in the Netherlands in 2010, as being stateless, which prevents him from accessing the rights of the 1954 Convention and, eventually, acquisition of a nationality. According to the Human Rights Committee, this violated the ICCPR and the Netherlands was “to review its decision on the author’s application to be registered as stateless in the civil registry […] as well as its decision on the author’s application to be recognized as a Dutch citizen, taking into account the Committee’s findings”.169 In addition, the Netherlands needed to adapt its laws and policies in this regard “to avoid similar violations in the future”.170 This shows a real impact at national level, which goes beyond the individual case. In 1979, a document specifically on the elimination of discrimination against women was adopted: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).171 This treaty contains a provision172 on the equality – i.e. non-discrimination – of women and men as regards nationality matters, which could be helpful in preventing statelessness because it is aimed at preventing conflict of nationality laws and loss of nationality of women. This instrument is also useful to preventing childhood statelessness, because it allows a mother – like a father – to pass on nationality to the child.173 The CEDAW Committee has addressed equal nationality rights for women in two General Recommendations: No. 21 (equality in marriage and family relations)174 and No. 32175 on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women. Furthermore, the CEDAW Committee 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 36 CCPR, ‘General Comment No. 17: Article 24 (Rights of the Child)’ (1989) 35th Session, para 8. Q v Denmark Com No 2001/2010 (CCPR, 19 May 2015) UN Doc CCPR/C/113/D/2001/2010 (2015). Open Society Foundations, ‘Litigation: Zhao v Netherlands’ (2017) <https://www. opensocietyfoundations.org/litigation/zhao-v-netherlands> accessed 3 January 2022. Full communication to CCPR in this case is available <https://pilpnjcm.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ ECD-1507-Zhao-5-Communication-As-Sent-SB-11.23.16.pdf> accessed 3 January 2022. DZ v the Netherlands Com No 2918/2016 (CCPR, 20 January 2021) UN Doc CCPR/C/130/D/2918/2016 (2020), para 10. Ibid, para 10. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13 (CEDAW). Art 9 CEDAW. See also ISI, ‘Statelessness & Human Rights: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’ (2018) Statelessness Essentials No. 7 <www.institutesi.org/ statelessness_and_CEDAW.pdf> accessed 4 September 2021. CEDAW Committee, ‘General Recommendation No. 21: Equality in Marriage and Family Relations’ (1994) 13th Session. CEDAW Committee, ‘General Recommendation No. 32 on on the Gender-related Dimensions of Refugee Status, Asylum, Nationality and Statelessness of Women’ (2014) CEDAW/C/GC/32. Intersentia