the seriousness of the consequences that he/she faces.46 22. (3) The decision-making process must be independent and objective. 47 (4) The individual will ordinarily be entitled to participate personally, arguing his/her case “in front of a court or other independent body”.48 (5) Cases in which deprivation decisions are made while the individual is in absentia pose particular risks. Those individuals will be “unlikely to have practical or effective access to a fair hearing”. If, however, a State is minded to proceed to deprive nationality in such circumstances, it should seek a court’s endorsement that the deprivation of nationality is strictly necessary to avoid national security risks, and that those risks cannot be mitigated by a more proportionate step.49 (6) In cases involving the State’s reliance on the individual’s possession of another nationality, the State should seek to obtain written confirmation of the individual’s nationality from the other State concerned. 50 (7) The effect of the State’s deprivation determination should be suspended until the appeal process has concluded.51 The UN Special Rapporteur observes, for completeness, that any breach of the due process guarantees provided by CIL requires an effective remedy. 52 This entails both a right to restoration of nationality and to compensation, where appropriate.53 UNHCR, ‘UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5’ (May 2020), para. 74; Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award (Civilian Claims – Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 and 27-32) (2004) 26 UNRIAA 195, para. 71 (“Deprivation of nationality is a serious matter with important and lasting consequences for those affected. In principle, it should follow procedures in which affected persons are adequately informed regarding the proceedings, can present their cases to an objective decision maker, and can seek objective outside review.”) 46 Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award (Civilian Claims – Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 and 27-32) (2004) 26 UNRIAA 195, para. 71. 47 UNHCR, ‘UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5’ (May 2020), para. 74 (“contest the facts and arguments … in front of a court or other independent body”); Anudo Ochieng Naudo v United Republic of Tanzania, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Judgment, 22 March 2018, para. 79 (“allowing the concerned to defend himself before an international body”). 48 UNHCR, ‘UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5’ (May 2020), para. 104. See further Concluding Observations on the Netherlands (CCPR/C/NLD/CO/5), 22 August 2019, paras 50-51. 49 50 UNHCR, ‘UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5’ (May 2020), paras 81 and 103. ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, UN Doc/ A/HRC/25/28, 19 December 2013, para. 33. 51 ‘Arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/34, 26 January 2009, para. 68; ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, UN Doc/ A/HRC/25/28, 19 December 2013, para. 34; UNHCR, ‘UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5’ (May 2020), para. 106. See further ICCPR, Article 2(3). 52 UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality’, Resolution 7/10, 27 March 2008, para. 7; UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality’, Resolution 10/13, 26 March 2009, para. 9; footnote 52 above. See, e.g., Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v Dominican Republic, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 28 August 2014, Judgment, Ser. C, No. 282, para. 444 (duty to make reparation under CIL), 469 (requirement for domestic remedial measures to be taken to protect the right to nationality) and 479-482 (compensation for loss). 53 9