57. Discrimination on the basis of political or other opinion is also prohibited under international law (1961 Convention, ICCPR Article 2 and 26, for example). Any such discrimination which leads to deprivation of nationality is also prohibited.99 58. The International Law Commission has established that states do not have an absolute right to decide who their nationals are 100 and the Human Rights Council has stated in that context that “deprivation of nationality, especially on discriminatory grounds … constitutes a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms and explicitly includes “political or other opinion in the non-exhaustive list of discriminatory grounds.101 The UNHCR Guidelines No. state that “in no circumstances should deprivation of nationality be used as a means to delegitimize political points of view that are different from those of the government in power, or to delegitimate [sic] groups holding certain political views. 102 59. As further set out in the Tunis Conclusions, in relation to Article 9 of the 1961 Convention: “The line between deprivation on political grounds and deprivation due to conduct inconsistent with the duty of loyalty to the State will not always be clear. However, a consequence of Article 9 is that a State will need to establish that a deprivation decision is not being made on political or other discriminatory grounds. Furthermore, the deprivation must not be based on conduct which is consistent with an individual´s freedom of expression, freedom of assembly or other rights guaranteed under international human rights law.”103 60. Even in the absence of explicit treaty norms, “the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality, which aims at protecting the right to retain a nationality, is implicit in provisions of human rights treaties that proscribe specific forms of discrimination .104 International jurisprudence confirms this. For instance, in Open Society Justice Initiative v. Côte d’Ivoire, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights found a violation of Articles and of the African Charter, which provide for non-discrimination and protect equality before the law.105 This rule is also recognised in Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic where the IACtHR underlined the prohibition of discrimination regarding access to a nationality;106 similarly in Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru, where the court recognised “the right to nationality without making a distinction about the way in which it was acquired, either by birth, naturalization or some other means established in the law of the respective State .107 Further, discriminatory deprivation of nationality may even amount to persecution in the sense of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.108 61. Some States differentiate in their law and practice between deprivation of nationality from socalled “mono nationals persons with only one citizenship) and individuals with dual or multiple 99 See UNHRC Guidelines No 5 (2020), para 78. Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No 10 (A/61/10), chap IV, commentary on article 4, para 6. 101 HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, , A HRC Para . 102 (2020), para 78. 103 UNHCR, ’Tunis Conclusions‘ , paras. -71. 104 UN Human Rights Council, A/HRC/13/34 (2009), para. 26. 105 ACmHPR, Open Society Justice Initiative v. Côte d’Ivoire (2015), paras. 151 and 156. 106 IACtHR, Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic (2005). 107 IACtHR, Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru (2014), para. 90. 108 See for an in depth discussion, E. Fripp, ‘Nationality and statelessness in the international law of refugee status’ , Hart Publishing; M. Foster and H. Lambert, International Refugee Law and the Protection of Stateless Persons. 100 41