94. The Respondent State further submits that after the cancellation of his passport, the Applicant had the opportunity to regularize his situation in Tanzania but refused to do so. *** 95. The Court notes that the Applicant alleged the violation of Article 12 of the Charter which stipulates that: (1) "Every individual shall have the right to freedom of movement and residence ... (2) "Every individual shall have the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country ..." 96.|n the opinion of the Court, the relevant portion of this provision which relates to the instant matter is Article 12(2), in particular, the right "to return to his country". ln the instant case, the Court will consider this aspect, notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant left the Respondent State's territory involu ntarily. 97. Having found that the deprivation of the Applicant's nationality was arbitrary, the question that arises at this juncture is whether a citizen can be expelled from his own country or prevented from returning to his country. 98. ln this regard, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has found "... that there are few circumstances in which a ban on entry into one's own country may be reasonable. A state Party may not ... by deporting a person to a third country, prevent that person from returning to his own country. "8 99.The Court notes that the Applicant's expulsion resulted from the arbitrary withdrawal of his nationality by the Respondent State. This procedure is contrary to the requirements of international law which stipulates that "a State cannot turn its citizen into a foreigner, after depriving him of his nationality for the sole purpose of expelling hime. I United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Observations, No. 27 on Freedom of Movement e Draft Articles on Expulsion of Aliens, lnternational Law Commission, Sixty-Sixth Ordinary Session, United Nations General Assembly, NCN.4/L.797, 24 May 2012. 2t v&