DO ME STIC L E G AL FRAME WO RK S TAT S TAT ELE ESL S E SBSY BDYE C DR EE CE RE E Victims claimed they were never given a reason why they were stripped of their nationality by the GoK. They initially had no procedural protection or right to appeal. Although a GoK later established an appeal body, it is not independent. Families are collectively punished along with men. 130 People who learned of their revocation from social media accounts on 2 November 2024. The GoK used government-linked accounts on social media platforms, such as on Instagram, to convey revocation decisions, such as the image posted on 2 November 2024 on the Al-Majlliss site (see image). 88 A total of 130 people learned that the GoK revoked their citizenship in this manner. British barrister Eric Fripp comparatively examines Kuwaitʼs application of the principle of proportionality and consistency with international law and found Kuwaitʼs conduct fundamentally flawed. He concludes that the muted response to it (see Conclusion, below) “provides another worrying sign of declining confidence in the defence of important norms of international law.” 89 Samira (pseudonym; see below), formerly Iranian and naturalised through marriage, told SALAM DHR that as of August 2025, the authorities made no attempt to inform her of the specific reason or legal basis for the revocation of her nationality and that she “[L]earned of the general justification via interviews with officials or accounts citing officials carried in the media.” Iman (pseudonym; case also featured elsewhere) told SALAM DHR that in December 2024, her name appeared on an “unpublished list [possibly Kuwait al-Youm, the Official Gazette]”. Taken together, testimony and other evidence indicates that the GoK conducted and concluded revocations without prior notice, clear reasons or providing any effective access to courts prior to or even once the person was notified or became aware. Judicial oversight was absent, and the GoK made no effort to inform those impacted in a dignified manner. If the impacted person believed that the GoKʼs decision was based on erroneous information, the person had no effective way to convey their concern or evidence to officials. Many individuals learned of the revocation only when their bank accounts were frozen, salaries stopped, or travel was denied. While Article 13 sets out clear thematic bases for revocation, in practice, the evidence used by the GoK to prove fraud, forgery, illegal acquisition or other procedural defects has been opaque. It is not subject to independent scrutiny, say by a legal representative of the person impacted. While court cases have, in the past, taken place to challenge the process of citizenship revocation, as noted above, courts have not acted in a consistent manner. DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK 36 40