2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(2) issuance and revocation of passports, the Respondent State is in a position of advantage over the Applicants since its agencies have all relevant information relating to process of issuance or revocation of passports has found that the Respondent State violated the Applicants’ rights to freedom of movement and their right to freely participate in the government of their country. The reparations claims will therefore only be assessed in relation to these wrongful acts. 18 It added that Rwanda ratified arts 12(2) and (3) of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), which has provisions similar to art 12(2) of the African Charter providing for the freedom of movement of civilians. 19 The Court, thus, required the respondent state to prove that the arbitrary deprivation was in line with the ICCPR. 20 The respondent state failed to respond to the applicants’ allegation that it revoked their passports arbitrarily. As a result, the Court noted that this amounted to the respondent state not having denied the claim against it. 21 The Court further mentioned that the Respondent State [did] not [provide] proof that the revocation of the Applicants' passport was based on their use of the passports in an inappropriate manner as required under art 34 of its Immigration and Emigration Law. 22 The above, combined with the fact that the respondent state failed to demonstrate that the revocation of the applicants’ passports was for the purposes of the restrictions set out in art 12(2) of the African Charter and art 12(2) and (3) of the ICCPR, led to the Court to find that the respondent state had arbitrarily revoked the passports of the applicants. 23 B Did the Revocation of the Applicants’ Passports Render Them Stateless? The applicants alleged that they were rendered stateless following the revocation of their passports. 24 On this question, the Court stated: the Court has determined that the Applicants have not been deprived of their nationality. They are still Rwandan nationals. The Court therefore finds that the Applicants' claim that they have been rendered stateless is moot and it is consequently dismissed. 25 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kennedy (n 1) 20 [84] citing Anudo (Merits) (n 3) 17 [74], [77] . International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) (‘ICCPR’) art 12(2): ‘Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own’. At art 12(3): The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. See also African Charter (n 3). Kennedy (n 1) 21–22 [88]–[92]. ibid 21 [86]. ibid 21 [86]–[87]; Law No 04/2011 (n 17) art 34. ibid 22 [91]–[92]. ibid 23–24 [99]–[100]. ibid 24 [102]. 334