was ‘that there are few, if any, circumstances in which deprivation of the right to enter one’s own country could be reasonable’.42 It may be noted that the Committee’s disregard for any link to nationality in favour of long term residence and social ties was criticized by a minority of Committee members because it risks extending ‘a kind of de facto second nationality to vast numbers of resident non-nationals’.43 In its Resolution 20/5 (2012), the Human Rights Council reaffirmed that: the arbitrary deprivation of nationality, especially on discriminatory grounds such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, is a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.44 It recalled ‘that the prevention and reduction of statelessness are primarily the responsibility of States, in appropriate cooperation with the international community’;45 States’ obligations to meet their protection responsibilities towards refugees, stateless people and internally displaced persons had already been acknowledged by the UN General Assembly a few years earlier. 46 The Human Rights Council made two further observations: ‘persons arbitrarily deprived of nationality are protected by international human rights and refugee law, as well as by instruments on statelessness’ and ‘the arbitrary deprivation of nationality disproportionately affects persons belonging to minorities’.47 In 2009, the UN Secretary General report to the Human Rights Council held the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality to have become a principle of customary international law;48 and so too of the obligation to avoid statelessness. 49 This would support the argument Nystrom, Nystrom and Turner v Australia, Communication No.1557/2007, Views of 18 July 2011, paras 7.5 and 7.6. See also Warsame v Canada, Communication No.1959/2010, Views of 21 July 2011, paras 8.4-8.6. 43 Individual Opinion of Committee members Gerald, Neuman and Iwasawa (dissenting), and Rodley (Sir), Keller and O’Flaherty (dissenting) in Nystrom, Nystrom and Turner v Australia, Communication No.1557/2007, Views of 18 July 2011, also referred to in Warsame v Canada, Communication No.1959/2010, Views of 21 July 2011. 44 UN Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: resolution / adopted by the Human Rights Council, 16 July 2012, A/HRC/RES/20/5, para.2 - available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/5016631b2.html [accessed 18 January 2013]. See also Human Rights Council resolution 10/13. 45 UN Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: resolution / adopted by the Human Rights Council, 16 July 2012, A/HRC/RES/20/5, para.3 - available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/5016631b2.html [accessed 18 January 2013]. 46 UNGA Resolutions on the Office of the UNHCR 61/137 of 25 January 2007, 66/133 of 12 March 2012, and 67/149 of 6 March 2013 – available at: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4c49a02c2.pdf [accessed 31 July 2013]. 47 Ibid. 48 See UNSG report to the Human Rights Council, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality’, A/HRC/13/34, 14 December 2009, referring to the following instruments: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers 42 8