caution in the application of Article 7(4) with respect to potential indirect discrimination against minority groups.32 The second condition of Article 7(4) of the 1961 Convention is that the naturalized person must have resided abroad for a period of “not less than seven consecutive years.”33 As a matter of good practice, and in accordance with the object and purpose of the 1961 Convention,34 the individual concerned should not lose nationality so as to become stateless if they do not have permanent residence in the State abroad and enjoy all the rights attached to permanent residence, including the right to seek naturalization, as appropriate. The third and fourth conditions of Article 7(4) of the 1961 Convention are that the person must have “fail[ed] to declare to the appropriate authority his intention to retain his nationality”;35 and that the Contracting State has specified in its domestic laws that loss of nationality may occur on the grounds laid out in Article 7(4), even if it would result in statelessness. Resolution III of the Final Act of the 1961 Convention “[r]ecommends that Contracting States making retention of nationality by their nationals abroad subject to a declaration or registration … take all possible steps to ensure that such persons are informed in time of the formalities and time-limits to be observed if they are to retain their nationality.”36 A Contracting State should also, as a matter of good practice, seek the written acknowledgement of receipt of such information from the individual concerned before it considers that individual to have lost nationality under Article 7(4) of the 1961 Convention. Particular attention must be paid to loss of nationality resulting in statelessness being proportionate to the pursuit of the aim of Article 7(4) of the 1961 Convention. The aim of Article 7(4) is to preserve a Contracting State’s ability to ensure that its 32 Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v Dominican Republic, 28 August 2014, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No. 282, para. 263: “The Court also reiterates ‘that international human rights law prohibits not only policies and practices that are deliberately discriminatory, but also those whose impact discriminates against certain categories of persons, even when it is not possible to prove the discriminatory intention.’ In this regard: ‘A violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination occurs also in situations and cases of indirect discrimination reflected in the disproportionate impact of laws, actions, policies or other measures that, even though their wording is or appears to be neutral, or has a general and undifferentiated scope, have negative effects on certain vulnerable groups.’ Thus, the Court has also stipulated: ‘States must abstain from implementing measures that, in any way, are addressed, directly or indirectly, at creating situations of discrimination de jure or de facto,’ and are obliged ‘to adopt positive measures to reverse or change discriminatory situations that exist in their societies that prejudice a specific group of persons.’” See also UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 20: Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art 2, para 2), 10 June 2009, E/C.12/GC/20, para. 10; UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, 25 April 2018, A/HRC/38/52, paras. 24 and 27; Open Society Justice Initiative, Citizenship and Equality in Practice: Guaranteeing Non-Discriminatory Access to Nationality, Protecting the Right to be Free from Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality and Combatting Statelessness (Submission to the OHCHR), November 2005, https://www.justiceinitiative.org/uploads/0d3774dc-821e-4f09-849e-a21e984378a6/citizenship_20051101.pdf. 33 1961 Convention, Article 7(4). 34 See paragraph 1 above. 35 1961 Convention, Article 7(4). 36 Final Act of the 1961 Convention, Resolution III. UNHCR > GUIDELINES ON STATELESSNESS NO.5 12