set out in the 1961 Convention, they may not apply such provisions to individuals who would thereby be left stateless. In addition, the exceptions are drafted with restrictive language and as exceptions to a general rule they are to be interpreted narrowly. This approach is consistent with the object and purpose of the treaty and is confirmed by the intention of the drafters as evidenced in the travaux prepratoires. There was consensus that developments in human rights law have considerably narrowed the circumstances in which these exceptions may be applied. 54. In all cases, consideration is to be given to the person´s responsibility for the act(s) which provide the basis for the deprivation as well as the circumstances in which they were committed, in line with the general requirement on proportionality.6 Article 8(2)(a): Exception allowing deprivation of nationality based on prolonged residence abroad 55. States may provide for deprivation of nationality due to prolonged residence abroad by a naturalized person or require registration to retain nationality by persons born to a national abroad. It is preferable to provide for deprivation as opposed to loss of nationality in such cases as the authority concerned will then be able to examine the circumstances of the individual concerned. Deprivation of nationality on these grounds is not justified where the result is statelessness because the impact on the individual far outweighs the objective sought by the State. Article 8(2)(b): Exception allowing deprivation of nationality due to misrepresentation or fraud 56. It was stressed that based on the travaux préparatoires, “misrepresentation” in the context of this exception is to be read as “dishonest misrepresentation”. Moreover, Article 8(2) only applies to nationality which is acquired through an application procedure – it would not extend to nationality acquired at birth or on the basis of Articles 1-4 of the 1961 Convention. 57. Under this exception, States may provide for deprivation of nationality due to failure to renounce a foreign nationality if the failure to renounce clearly can be classified as fraud. The deprivation only becomes effective if it is proven that the person involved did not renounce the former nationality. In this context, a State may not refuse documents proving the renunciation of the former nationality on the basis that they do not fulfil certain formal criteria, e.g. they have not been legalized or bear an apostille stamp. Causality and proportionality in the context of deprivation for misrepresentation or fraud 58. In order for fraud or misrepresentation to be a basis for the deprivation of nationality (whether or not statelessness results), there must be causality between the fraud or misrepresentation and the grant of nationality. In other words, the fraud must be material to the acquisition of nationality. Deprivation is not permissible if the nationality would have been acquired even if the misrepresentations or concealment had not occurred. 6 See paragraphs 19-24, above. 12