as a matter of good practice obtain written confirmation of that citizenship status from that other State.117 Where a State seeks to deprive a person of nationality in absentia, the person affected by such deprivation is unlikely to have practical or effective access to a fair hearing, and deprivation of nationality in absentia should be avoided for that reason. If a State nevertheless seeks to deprive a person’s nationality in absentia, it should seek a court’s endorsement that deprivation of nationality in absentia is strictly necessary to avoid risks to national security posed specifically by the presence of the person concerned within the State, and that such risks cannot be mitigated through alternate means in accordance with the requirement that deprivation of nationality be a measure proportionate to a State’s legitimate aims. Where a State deprives an individual of nationality in absentia and that individual comes forward subsequently to challenge the deprivation, the State should as a matter of good practice declare the deprivation void and undertake the relevant legal and administrative proceedings afresh. Failing this, the State should ensure that the person has practical and effective access to an appeal procedure and suspend the deprivation of nationality while the appeal procedure is ongoing. Effective remedy States must ensure that an individual whose nationality has been withdrawn in contravention of the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality has access to an effective remedy. The right to an effective remedy is codified within several widely ratified international human rights treaties including Article 2(3) of the ICCPR .118 It supplements Article 8(4) of the 1961 Convention in that the right to a fair hearing by a court or any other independent body should include an effective remedy where the person concerned has lost or been deprived of their nationality in a manner inconsistent with the 1961 Convention and applicable international human rights law. States can ensure the right to an effective remedy for wrongful withdrawal of nationality through ensuring that any person claiming such a remedy has the right thereto determined by appropriate authorities and “that the … authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.”119 States should also ensure that persons arbitrarily 117 See paragraphs 80-83 above. Article 2(3) of the ICCPR states that where rights set out in the treaty are violated, individuals shall have access to an effective remedy. This applies to the right to a nationality as Article 24(3) of the ICCPR concerns the right to a nationality. See also Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v Dominican Republic, 28 August 2014, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No. 282, para. 444: “In the context of adjudicating upon the State’s obligation to protect the right to a nationality, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights asserted that “any violation of international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation, and … this … reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.” 119 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171, (ICCPR), Article 2(3). Convention on the Rights of the Child 1577 UNTS 3, Article 8(2): “Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to reestablishing speedily his or her identity.” 118 UNHCR > GUIDELINES ON STATELESSNESS NO.5 32