retaining a nationality (e.g., on discriminatory grounds).8 The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality also covers situations where there is no formal act by a State but where the practice of its competent authorities clearly shows that they have ceased to consider a particular individual (or group) as a national (or nationals), for example, where authorities persistently refuse to issue or renew documents without providing an explanation or justification. Confiscation of identity documents and/or expulsion from the territory coupled with a statement by authorities that a person is not considered a national would also be evidence of deprivation of nationality. II. STANDARDS IN THE 1961 CONVENTION ON THE REDUCTION OF STATELESSNESS A. Overview of Articles 5-9 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness This Part of these Guidelines will focus on the standards contained in the 1961 Convention with respect to withdrawal of nationality. It will provide guidance on the minimum content of these standards and also provide guidance on good practice. By the time of the drafting of the 1961 Convention, there was widespread recognition that statelessness had significantly adverse impacts upon individuals that should be avoided to the greatest extent possible.9 The object and purpose of the 1961 Convention was to prevent and reduce statelessness.10 In pursuing this objective, the drafters of the Convention sought to balance the legitimate interests of both States and individuals in nationality matters as these respective interests were understood at 8 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. 238, 318 and 469; UN Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General, 14 December 2009, A/HRC/13/24, para. 23. 9 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons, 360 UNTS 117, (1954 Convention), Preamble: The need to avoid adverse impacts of statelessness upon individuals is reflected in the preamble of the 1954 Convention, in which it is clear that parties took account of the fact that “the United Nations ha[d], on various occasions, manifested its profound concern for stateless persons and endeavoured to assure stateless persons the widest possible exercise of…fundamental rights and freedoms.” See also UN Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, A Study of Statelessness, United Nations, 1 August 1949, E/1112; E/1112/Add.1, https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae68c2d0.html: This study shows that statelessness was a matter of significant international concern even before the drafting of the 1954 Convention. 10 UN General Assembly (UNGA) Res. 3274 (XXIX), 10 December 1974. UNGA Res. 31/36, 30 November 1976. UNGA Res. 50/152, 21 December 1995. UNGA Res. 61/137, 19 December 2006. UN Conference on the Elimination or Reduction of Future Statelessness, Summary Record of the Second Plenary Meeting, 24 April 1961, A/CONF.9/SR.2, pp. 2-3: “After the Second World War, statelessness had again become a pressing problem. In various parts of the world, large numbers of persons, because of their status as refugees or as stateless persons, or both, had not enjoyed the protection of any Government. To relieve the hardships of such persons, action taken under the auspices of the United Nations had resulted in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 and the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of 1954. In addition, efforts had been made to eliminate or at least to reduce as much as possible the occurrence of future statelessness. That was the specific purpose for which, pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 896 (IX), the Conference had been convened.” UNHCR > GUIDELINES ON STATELESSNESS NO.5 4