that results in statelessness would only conceivably be possible to justify as proportionate in limited and narrow circumstances.108 This is reflected by the very narrow circumstances under which a Contracting State may withdraw nationality under the 1961 Convention. Considerations of timing are also relevant to the proportionality test. States are therefore encouraged to ensure that there is a defined and limited period with respect to the time elapsed between commission of an act and its discovery by the authorities, and between the discovery and the withdrawal of nationality. Withdrawal of nationality is arbitrary where there is no due process In order to avoid arbitrary deprivation of nationality, it is necessary for States to implement procedural safeguards in all cases of withdrawal of nationality regardless of whether or not they result in statelessness.109 Accordingly, due process requirements must be met in all cases of withdrawal of nationality. Under Article 14(1) of the ICCPR, “[i]n the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” 110 Decisions by States which infringe upon a person’s right to a nationality are subject to due process protections as a matter of international law. The minimum content of the requirement of due process in this context is that an individual is able to understand the reasons why their nationality has been withdrawn and has access to legal and/or administrative avenues through which they may challenge the withdrawal of nationality.111 State decisions involving the acquisition, retention or renunciation of nationality should be issued in writing and open to effective administrative and judicial review.112 108 See e.g., Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, para. 4. 109 This element of the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality is reflected in Article 8(4) of the 1961 Convention. See Part II (c) above. 110 See e.g., UN General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, 6 August 2008, A/63/223, para. 12; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) (ECHR), Article 6; American Convention on Human Rights (adopted at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, 22 November 1969), Article 8; African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986) (1982) 21 ILM 58, Article 8; International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 2178 UNTS 197, Articles 17 and 21; and UN Human Rights Committee, General comment no. 32: Article 14, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to fair trial, 23 August 2007, CCPR/C/GC/32, http://www.refworld.org/docid/478b2b2f2.html. 111 See e.g. Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the SecretaryGeneral, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, para. 31. 112 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1999 Vol. II (Part Two), https://www.refworld.org/docid/4512b6dd4.html, Article 17: “Applications relating to the acquisition, retention or renunciation of nationality or to the exercise of the right of option in relation to the succession of States shall be processed without undue delay. Relevant decisions shall be issued in writing and shall be open to effective administrative or judicial review.”. See also European Convention on Nationality, 1997 ETS 166, Article 11; and UNHCR > GUIDELINES ON STATELESSNESS NO.5 30