120. Deprivation of nationality for the purpose of national security must never be automatic by operation of the law. This follows from the standards and commentary provided in Principle 7.5, as these demonstrate that any decision on deprivation of nationality in a national security context requires an individual assessment of the situation of the person concerned and should therefore never be automatic. At EU level, the CJEU has held that loss of nationality under the operation of Member States’ law is possible, but is subject to competent national authorities’ examination, including of national courts where appropriate, of the consequences of the loss of that nationality.212 121. The individual concerned must be notified of the intent to deprive nationality prior to the actual decision to do so, to ensure that the person concerned is able to provide facts, arguments, and evidence in defence of their case, which are to be taken into account by the relevant authority as a basic feature of due process and in view of Article 14(3) of the ICCPR. Similarly, a person whose nationality has been withdrawn should not be deprived of the opportunity to enter and remain in that country in order to participate in-person for legal proceedings related to that decision. 122. In line with Article 9 of the 1961 Convention, decisions on deprivation of nationality must be individual, as opposed to collective. In fact, “where withdrawal of nationality is linked to past persecution against a particular group within the society of a State, the State is encouraged to implement a simple, non-discretionary application procedure for individuals from this group to re-acquire nationality. 213 Article 9 obliges States to not deprive any person or group of persons of their nationality on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds. As the Tunis Conclusions demonstrate, the decision to deprive persons of their nationality needs to be made individually for each person involved. This is clear from the terms used in Article “a person , “the person of the 1961 Convention and also from the requirement in paragraph 4 of that Article “each individual is to be afforded a fair hearing . Indeed, if two spouses acquired nationality on the basis of one naturalization decree, separate deprivation decisions have to be made for each.214 123. In view of Principle 5 above, States have the obligation not to render any person stateless through deprivation of nationality. As such, the obligation is on the competent authorities of the depriving State to ensure and prove that the person concerned holds another nationality. The latter can be practically ensured by the State concerned securing confirmation of nationality from another State. 124. Individuals must be notified in writing of the decision to deprive nationality and of the reasons underlying the decision. This must be done so in a prompt manner and in a language that they understand in keeping with Article 14(3)(a) ICCPR. Similar norms are found in the ECN. According to Article 10 ECN, States must ensure that applications relating to the loss of its nationality are processed within a reasonable time. Furthermore, Article 11 ECN says States need to assure that decisions relating to loss of its nationality contain reasons in writing. Furthermore, the ECtHR has held that States must act “diligently and swiftly to avoid arbitrariness.215 All decisions on loss and 212 CJEU, M.G. Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (2019), Case C-221/17, para. 48. UNHRC Guidelines No 5 (2020), para 108. 214 UNHCR, ’Tunis Conclusions‘ , para. 61. 215 ECtHR, K2 v United Kingdom (2017), Application no. 42387/13, para. 50. 213 63