deprived of nationality have practical access to an effective remedy,120 and that the remedy consists of restoration of nationality and compensation.121 States are encouraged to ensure that restoration of nationality as a remedy for arbitrary deprivation of nationality is automatic, and preferably with retroactive effect to the moment of deprivation.122 Where proof of identification is necessary to procure an effective remedy, States should adopt flexible rules of evidence as withdrawal of nationality may hamper an individual’s ability to produce such documentation. For example, witness testimony or reliance on other sources of documentary evidence could be permitted in place of identity documents.123 Where withdrawal of nationality is linked to past persecution against a particular group within the society of a State, the State is encouraged to implement a simple, non-discretionary application procedure for individuals from this group to re-acquire nationality. C. Other relevant provisions in international human rights law International human rights law on non-discrimination, non-refoulement, the prohibition of torture, the right to leave one’s own country, the right to enter one’s own country and the right to private and family life are relevant to the permissibility of withdrawal of nationality. In all cases of withdrawal of nationality, States must adhere to their obligations under customary international law as well as relevant treaty provisions to which they are bound that pertain to these principles. The principle of non-discrimination appears in numerous widely ratified international human rights treaties, including Article 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2 of the CRC, Article 9 of the CEDAW and Article 5 of the CERD.124 These provisions complement Article 9 of the 1961 Convention. States should take steps to ensure that the practical effect of withdrawal of nationality is not that certain groups (e.g., ethnic or religious minorities) are 120 Administrative of financial hurdles which cause significant delay or practical difficulties with respect to the restoration of nationality are likely to curtail the right to an effective remedy. Such hurdles might include lack of information on application procedures and prohibitively high administrative fees. 121 See e.g., Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v Dominican Republic, 28 August 2014, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No. 282, paras. 479-482; Human Rights Council Resolution 7/10, 27 March 2008; Human Rights Council Resolution 10/13, 26 March 2009; and UN Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, Guidance to States on human rights-compliant responses to the threat posed by foreign fighters, 2018, https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Human-Rights-Responses-to-Foreign-Fighters-webfinal.pdf, p. 23. 122 See e.g., Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v Dominican Republic, 28 August 2014, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No. 282, para. 469. 123 See e.g., Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General, 14 December 2009, A/HRC/13/34, para. 12; and Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General, 26 January 2009, A/HRC/10/34, para. 59. 124 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 15. European Convention on Nationality, 1997 ETS 166, Article 5(1). UNHCR > GUIDELINES ON STATELESSNESS NO.5 33