50 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 25(1) and (ii). Similarly, paragraph 7 of the declaration, deprivation on grounds of fraud in acquiring citizenship, complies with Article 8(2)(b) of the 1961 Convention. As addressed by the Norwegian government, paragraph 3 (acts incompatible with the status as Tunisian citizen and prejudicial to the Tunisia’s interests) and paragraph 4 (conviction for a crime in Tunisia or abroad punishable by Tunisian law with at least five years’ imprisonment) are clearly beyond the limitations set by Article 8(3)(a). Not addressed in the Norwegian objection, but nevertheless in violation of the Convention, is paragraph 5 (evasion of mandatory military service). There are no grounds in Article 8(3)(a) or any other provision of the Convention which could justify the cited grounds. E. Belgium Belgium is one of the most recent State Parties to the 1961 Convention. In its elaborate declaration it reserves the right to deprive naturalized citizens whom have acquired the Belgian nationality under conditions that are currently provided for under the Belgian legislation.46 The declaration corresponds with the content of the Belgian Nationality Code at the time of ratification of the 1961 Convention. Paragraph 1 once again resembles Article 8(2)(b) of the Convention and does, therefore, not raise any compliance issues. Furthermore, paragraph 2 although omitting - as in the case of the Austrian declaration - the word ‘vital’, mirrors the grounds contained in Article 8(3)(a)(i). Serious concerns in light of the boundaries established by Article 8(3)(a) are raised by paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Belgian declaration. Paragraph 3 permits the deprivation of nationality for persons sentenced to non-suspended prison sentences of at least five years for a specified list of ten offences - including terrorist offences, human trafficking and violations of international humanitarian law. Paragraph 4 legitimatizes the deprivation of nationality for individuals sentenced to any non-suspended prison sentences of at least five years for an offence that was manifestly facilitated by the possession of Belgian nationality and which was, furthermore, committed within five years of the acquisition of citizenship. The similarity of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Belgium declaration to paragraph 4 of the Tunisian declaration with regards to its phrasing and its material scope is striking. Both elements of the two respective declarations address grounds of deprivation for sentences of at least five years imprisonment. There is no connecting link drawn by either declaration between the conviction to the cited offence and the condition of constituting an act that is ‘seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State’. However, the Belgian declaration, by way of contrast to the Tunisian declaration, did not draw any objections from the other State Parties. The reasons and intentions for the double-standards applied to the two cases remain subject to speculation. It is, however, remarkable that all four countries, which in some form or another, objected to the declaration of Tunisia are countries from the geo-political West criticising the legal position of a country with a Muslim majority population. The same Western states then remained silent when the legal position of Tunisia was to some extent restated by another Western State – here, Belgium. While this observation may appear farfetched, it does resonate with the observation made under Section 2, linking the use of Article 8 (3) to the rise of the foreign fighters’ phenomenon. 46. For a detailed analysis of the new practices under Belgian nationality law see, P. Wautelet, ‘Deprivation of citizenship for ‘‘jihadists’’- Analysis of Belgian and French practice and policy in light of the principle of equal treatment’, in P. Kruiniger (ed.), Jihad, Islam en Recht (BJU, 2016), p. 14.