100. However, the Court notes that even if the Respondent State regarded the Applicant as an alien, it is clear that the conditions of his expulsion did not comply with the rule prescribed in Article 13 of the ICCpR which stipulates that: "An alien lawfully in the territory of a State party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security othenrise require, be altowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.,,10 101. The Court notes that the objective of the afore-cited ICCpR Article is to protect a foreigner from any form of arbitrary expulsion by providing him with legal guaranties. He should be able to present his cause before a competent authority and cannot in any case be expelled arbitrarily. 102. The Court also notes that, in this case, the Applicant was deported to Kenya, which, in turn, declared him as being in an irregular situation. This proves that, prior to his expulsion, the Respondent State failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the Applicant from being in a situation of statelessness. As a matter of fact, prior to his expulsion to Kenya, the Respondent State could have satisfied itself that, if the Applicant is not Tanzanian, he is Kenyan. 103. is The Court also notes that the Applicant's present situation whereby he rejected by both ranzania and Kenya as a national, makes him a stateless person as defined by Article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Personsll. 104. Consequently, the Court holds that given the fact that he had been considered by the Respondent State as a national prior to the withdrawal of his nationality, he could not be arbitrarily expetted. 1o See Article 12.4 of ICCPR united Nations convention relating to the status of stateless persons, Article 1 (1). Although Tanzania has not ratified the 1954 convention, the lnternational Law commission (lLC) has stated that the definition of Articte 1 (1) "can without doubt be considered to have acquired a customary ihaiacte/', see CDl, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries, tLC yearbook Vot.2 (2) (2006) pp 48_49 " J 22 @ E