Chakrabarty: Citizenship Deprivation as an Act of Persecution: Case Study of t adoption of citizenship by fraudulent means in the absence of which citizenship could have never been acquired by the individual, could be serious enough to meet this criterion. However, deprivation - whether legislative or administrative - is absolutely prohibited if it is based on discriminatory grounds, irrespective of whether or not the person is left stateless.52 This provision is thus broad enough to cover policies and actions where, although it is impossible to show a discriminatory intention, a discriminatory impact is apparent. 53 The absolute nature of this prohibition arises not merely from the cohort of Statelessness Conventions which anyway have few signatories, but from the jus cogens nature of the prohibition on racial discrimination. 54 Thus, a perusal of the Statelessness Conventions shows that withdrawal of citizenship from certain categories of individuals is more onerous as compared to the others: it affords greater protection to those with single nationality (who would on withdrawal become stateless); and absolute protection to those deprived on the basis of their protected identities. Moreover, even under the most extreme situations, it limits deprivation to only “naturalized” citizens - leading to the presumption that birth citizens cannot be stripped of their nationality rights. 55 (b) Procedural Aspects of Deprivation Any act of deprivation must be subject to fair trial standards;56 the individual must be provided with reasons in writing, so as to allow him the opportunity to challenge the decision. All such decisions must be based on individualized assessments,57 and must be confirmed by a court or any other independent authority, after providing the individual with a hearing on the merits. In case of a confirmation, they are also entitled to an appeal. Individuals must continue to retain their nationality up till the conclusion of such hearings.58 52 1961 Convention, art 9. Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v Dominican Republic (2014), Inter-AM Ct HR (Ser C) No 282 at para 263. 54 International Law Commission, “Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Wrongful Acts, with commentaries’” (2001) 2:2 Yearbook of the Int’l L Commission 31, p. 85 at para 5. 55 This appears to be the case, even though para. 112 of the UNHCR Guidelines mentions that no distinction must be drawn between naturalized and birth citizens. See, Luca Bucken and Rene de Groot, “Deprivation of Nationality under Article 8(3) of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness” (2018) 25:1 Maastricht J of European and Comparative L 38 (enlisting declarations submitted for grounds under which nationality can be withdrawn, including for crimes of terrorism, disloyalty to state, or criminal offences within a certain period after naturalization). Even in the most serious of cases, they have been limited to naturalized citizens. 56 1961 Convention, art 8(4). 57 Supra note 45 at paras. 76-77. 58 Ibid at paras 72-75, 98, 100. 53 Published by Osgoode Digital Commons, 2021 9