the stated aim and substantially contribute to that purpose. Also, “necessity implies that the conduct of the person concerned must create an imminent, ongoing and permanent risk to the vital interests of the State because citizenship deprivation is permanent. 7.5. Proportionality PRINCIPLE LEGAL STANDARD The decision to deprive someone of their nationality must respect the principle of proportionality. This requires that in any case of deprivation: HRC General Comment No. 27 on Art. 12 ICCPR: “ R estrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instruments amongst those, which might achieve the desired result. 7.5.1. The immediate and long-term impact of deprivation of nationality on the rights of the individual, their family, and on society is proportionate to the legitimate purpose being pursued; 7.5.2. The deprivation of nationality is the least intrusive means of achieving the stated legitimate purpose; and 7.5.3. The deprivation of nationality is an effective means of achieving the stated legitimate purpose. UNHCR Guidelines No. 5 (2020), para. 94 ff: “Withdrawal of nationality must always be proportionate to a legitimate aim Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality: Report of the Secretary General, A/HRC/25/28, para. 40: “Even where loss or deprivation of nationality does not lead to statelessness, States must weigh the consequences of loss or deprivation of nationality against the interest it is seeking to protect. Tunis Conclusions (2013), para. 19: “Deprivation of nationality must be the least intrusive means of those that might achieve the desired result. Tunis Conclusions (2013), para. 20: “Deprivation of nationality must be proportionate to the interest which the State seeks to protect. This requires a balancing of the impact on the rights of the individual and the interests of the State. 105. Deprivation of nationality is arbitrary when it is not proportionate. The consequences of a decision to deprive someone of their nationality must be assessed against the principle of proportionality. Invocation of processes to deprive a person of nationality must never serve to suspend the obligations of the State to respect and protect the human rights of the person who is the object of the deprivation. The direct and indirect human rights impacts on the person(s), their family members, in particular their children, must be taken into account where deprivation of nationality is sought. This requires the State to carry out an individual assessment to determine this. Indeed, the Tunis Conclusions say: “Deprivation of nationality must be proportionate to the interest which the State seeks to protect. This requires a balancing of the impact on the rights of individual and the interests of the State.”185 185 UNHCR, ’Tunis Conclusions‘ , para . 57