A/HRC/25/28
deprivation of nationality in response to absence from the territory do not have a safeguard
in place to ensure this is the case and thus to prevent statelessness..38
Serious criminal offence
20.
Neither the European Convention on Nationality nor the 1961 Convention allow
States to deprive a person of nationality in response to ordinary crime.39 Moreover, the
imposition of loss or deprivation of nationality as a penalty, subsequently and in addition to
a regular criminal sentence, may breach the general legal principle of ne bis in idem.
21.
A number of States, however, provide in their domestic law for the possibility of
loss or deprivation of nationality in response to a serious criminal offence, although it is far
less common than the other grounds described above. Usually the relevant article stipulates
the severity of crime which can lead to loss or deprivation of nationality with reference to
the type of crime40 or the length of imprisonment41 that has or can be imposed against this
crime. This ground for loss or deprivation tends to be imposed on naturalized nationals
exclusively and often the law prescribes a time limit following the acquisition of nationality
after which the commission of a serious crime can no longer result in loss or deprivation of
nationality.
Discrimination
22.
In line with relevant international standards prohibiting the arbitrary deprivation of
nationality and prohibiting discrimination on any ground, very few domestic laws provide
for deprivation of nationality on grounds such as race, religion, political opinion or
disability. Where such regulations exist, it is not evident whether they continue to be
invoked in practice in individual cases.42 Today, numerous States explicitly prohibit
arbitrary or discriminatory deprivation of nationality in their domestic law.43 Nevertheless,
incidences of discriminatory deprivation of nationality, without a clear legislative basis or
for which a legislative basis was exceptionally created, have been a source of widespread
suffering and even large-scale statelessness in the past.44 Some of these situations remain
unresolved to this day and have led to inter-generational statelessness, affecting the children
and grandchildren of those originally deprived of their nationality.45 Also, new cases of
large-scale and discriminatory deprivation of nationality continue to be reported.46
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
10
The study (MENA Project) conducted by Tilburg University on nationality and statelessness in the
Middle East and North Africa (forthcoming 2014), found that six states in this region have “absence”
as a ground for loss or deprivation of nationality in their laws, and none makes this conditional upon
the person concerned not being rendered stateless. On the other hand, Indonesia reformed its law in
2006 to introduce just such a safeguard, see submission from Indonesia.
Both treaties refer to “conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State Party” as a
ground for deprivation.
Submissions from Granada and Burkina Faso.
Submissions from United Arab Emirates and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
A small number of examples of problematic regulations are highlighted in Bronwen Manby,
Citizenship Law in Africa: A comparative study, 2010, as well as in the study conducted by Tilburg
University on nationality and statelessness in the Middle East and North Africa (forthcoming 2014).
Submission from the Russian Federation.
Including individual and mass denationalization by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, which
prompted the inclusion of the right to a nationality in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
See, for instance, submission from the Equal Rights Trust regarding statelessness in Myanmar.
UNHCR, “UNHCR concerned by potential impact of Dominican court decision on persons of Haitian
descent”, press release, 1 October 2013; UNICEF, “Statement attributable to UNICEF on the