the fact that an ancestor acquired the nationality concerned by naturalization, this would conflict with Article 6 of the 1961 Convention if the result is statelessness. Article 8(3): Exceptions allowing deprivation of nationality resulting in statelessness due to conduct inconsistent with the duty of loyalty to the State or evidence of allegiance to another State 65. Article 8(3) allows States to retain the right to deprive persons of their nationality on the grounds listed exhaustively in the paragraph, even if this results in statelessness. Specifically, these exceptions include where a national behaved inconsistently with the duty of loyalty to the State concerned, or has taken an oath or made a formal declaration or otherwise given definite evidence of allegiance to another State. A State may only use one or more of these exceptions if a declaration is made to that end at the time of signature, ratification or accession and the ground(s) concerned already exist(s) at that time in the nationality legislation of the State; legislation may not be amended to introduce the possibility at the time of ratification or thereafter (stand still clause). Only 15% of the Contracting States make use of the right to retain a specific ground for loss under Article 8(3) with statelessness as a result. Article 8(3)(a)(i): Exception allowing deprivation on the basis of services rendered to or emoluments received from foreign States 66. If a State submits a declaration under Article 8(3)(a)(i) and provides for deprivation of nationality with statelessness as a consequence based on the fact that a person “has, in disregard of an express prohibition by the Contracting State rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments from, another State”, the prohibition must be provided for in national law and have been issued expressly to the individual concerned, the person individually informed and a time limit provided for ceasing the activities concerned. 67. The exception covered by Article 8(3)(a)(i) may not be applied where an individual rendered services to, or received emoluments from an entity which does not constitute a State, such as a non-State armed actor, an intergovernmental organization, a nongovernmental organization or a business entity. Article 8(3)(a)(ii): Exception allowing deprivation on the basis of conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State 68. This exception to the basic rule establishes a very high threshold for deprivation of nationality resulting in statelessness. The ordinary meaning of the terms “seriously prejudicial” and “vital interests” indicate that the conduct covered by this exception must threaten the foundations and organization of the State whose nationality is at issue. The term “seriously prejudicial” requires that the individuals concerned have the capacity to impact negatively the State. Similarly, “vital interests” sets a considerably higher threshold than “national interests”. This interpretation is confirmed by the travaux préparatoires. The exception does not cover criminal offences of a general nature. On the other hand, acts of treason, espionage and – depending on their interpretation in domestic law – “terrorist acts” may be considered to fall within the scope of this paragraph. Finally, the acts concerned must be inconsistent with the “duty of loyalty” to the State of 14