18 Summary of judgment • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 guaranteed the right to nationality and protected against arbitrary deprivations of nationality. The grant of nationality to a person was within a State’s sovereignty and the power to deprive a person nationality had to be exercised in accordance with international standards to avoid the risk of statelessness. There were exceptional situations under which a person could be deprived nationality and the conditions for loss of nationality were that there had to be a clear legal basis, it had to serve a legitimate purpose that conformed with international law, it had to be proportionate to the interest protected and it had to be done in accordance with procedural guarantees which allowed an affected person to have a defence before an independent body. • The applicant’s citizenship was challenged 33 years after his birth. A scientific DNA test was necessary for purposes of establishing who the applicant’s parents were. In the absence of such a DNA test, the court held that the respondent did not have sufficient proof to justify the withdrawal of the applicant’s nationality and the denial of nationality under those circumstances was arbitrary and contrary to article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. • Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protected a foreigner from arbitrary expulsion without legal guarantees. The court held that if the respondent regarded the applicant as an alien, the applicant should at least have had a chance to present his case before a competent authority. It held that a State should not deprive a citizen of nationality for the sole purpose of expelling him from the country. • When the applicant was found in Kenyan territory, he was arraigned in a Kenyan court where he was fined for having an illegal stay in Kenya. The fact that both Kenya and Tanzania rejected him meant that he was a stateless person within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. • Some of the alleged violations of the rights of the applicant The fact that both Kenya and Tanzania that arose from the difficult living conditions he had in rejected him meant that he was a stateless within the meaning of article 1 of the the no man’s land, would not have been there if the person Convention relating to the Status of Stateless appellant had not lost his nationality. The court held Persons. that the applicant had established violations of the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of nationality, the right not to be arbitrarily expelled from a State and the right to a judicial remedy. The court postponed consideration of other related violations to a later stage. The applicant had established violations of the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of nationality, the right not to be arbitrarily expelled from a State and the right to a judicial remedy. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST