Convention grounds, calls for both the cause and the effect of statelessness to be examined by courts (i.e., an application of the principle of indivisibility of rights). Key to a proper interpretation of persecution is a clear understanding of how persecution relates to discriminatory treatment. Human rights law provides the standards necessary to determine when a treatment is considered discriminatory and the mechanisms to challenge such treatment if it is arbitrary or disproportionate. However, not all discriminatory treatment amounts to persecution; refugee law requires that the discriminatory treatment in question reach a certain level of severity to be considered as persecution. According to the UNHCR Handbook, this may be the case: - of any serious violations of human rights for a Convention reason;311 or - based on the circumstances of each case;312 or - based on cumulative grounds;313 or - based on the consequences or ‘substantially prejudicial nature’ of the act for the person concerned.314 In addition, the treatment in question must be for a particular motive (race, religion, nationality, membership to a particular social group, or political opinion). The domestic case law surveyed shows a strong preference for an approach based on the consequences or ‘substantial prejudicial nature’ of the arbitrary deprivation of nationality to the person concerned. On occasion, courts have recognized the cumulative grounds approach in such cases. However, the first and second approaches to ‘persecution’, whereby the right to a nationality itself is found to be violated, are seldom used. What is currently missing is a generous and progressive approach to the right to a nationality within the refugee definition, especially where courts are dealing with deprivation of nationality and discrimination issues. To illustrate this point, this paper has discussed the fundamental character of the right to nationality in international human rights law (the cause), and the effects should this basic right be violated (the consequences). It has highlighted the approach of international/regional human rights courts based on the indivisibility of rights. Arbitrary deprivation of nationality resulting in statelessness heightens the risk of being refused entry and cases where the right to return has been denied are many. Furthermore, stateless persons are often the most vulnerable to discriminatory treatment in the society in which they live because deprivation or denial of nationality itself may be discriminatory treatment and/or may lead to discriminatory treatment beyond the actual act depriving a person of her or his nationality (e.g., the denial of residence, the right to work, education, basic health care etc.). Such acts are clearly captured by the existing human rights framework. However, deficiencies in domestic and international mechanisms of enforcement impede their ability UNHCR Handbook, para.51. Ibid, para.52. 313 Ibid, para.53. 314 Ibid, para.54. 311 312 55