Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/7 is arbitrary, especially because the principle of non-discrimination and general prohibition on statelessness seem to be co-existent safeguards in international law. 4. Challenges in the Netherlands Highly charged debates exist in the Netherlands since deprivation of nationality became possible without criminal conviction. The Commissioner of Human Rights of the Council of Europe (the Commissioner) sent a letter to the Minister of Security and Justice and the Minister of Interior and Kingdom Relations, asking for clarifications on the Bill as it was at odds with Articles 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.54 The Commissioner stated in his letter that: ‘Revocation should occur in a manner that prevents statelessness and is non-discriminatory on, inter alia, religious or ethnic origin grounds. The principle of non-discrimination also applies to distinctions between nationals, such as those who have acquired nationality by birth and those who have acquired it later.’ He asked for clarification about how this Bill could be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner, as the 2014 Statistics from the Central Bureau of Statistics in the Netherlands showed that half of all dual nationals are of Turkish or Moroccan descent. So, the measure would primarily affect them but excludes alleged terrorists who only have Dutch citizenship. The government ignored the issue and responded that the ECN allows them to revoke citizenship of people if it would not lead to statelessness. Further, the Netherlands promised to examine the following recommendation received during the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review on its counter terrorism measures: Target individuals and groups based on race, ethnicity and religion, including Muslims and Muslim communities and ensure that such measures do not associate, or contribute towards associating terrorism with any religion, race, culture, ethnic group or nationality.55 In 2017, the question whether deprivation measures in the Netherlands are discriminatory is still unanswered and new issues have arisen in the meantime. For instance, a new law on registration of persons (Wet Basisregistratie Personen) was implemented, whereby a Dutch person’s second (and other) nationality is no longer registered anywhere since January 2015. Also, in cases where a person’s foreign nationality was registered prior to adoption of this law, it was decided to reverse such registration.56 As a result, it is not clear how the existing nationality deprivation measures are implemented, while providing a safeguard against statelessness. 57 The Netherlands does not have a statelessness determination 54 Commissioner for Human Rights, CommHR/NM/sf 045-2016, 2 November 2016, https://www.eerstekamer.nl/overig/20161129/brief_council_of_europe_van_2/document. 55 Kamerstukken II 2016-2017, 26150, nr. 161, p. 17. 56 Kamerstukken II 2012-2013, 33219, nr. 9, p. 4. 57 This new law was adopted as a result of a highly charged debate among citizens who solely feel Dutch but are also registered as dual nationals, and therefore feel foreign. Considerations of the legislative powers in relation to deprivation of nationality in national security circumstances was at the time deprivation of nationality was never used before. If used in the future, it can be expected that criminal investigations will point out whether a person has another nationality or not. However, now deprivation of nationality as criminal law measure is used and exists next to a newly adopted administrative law measure that allows the Minister of Security and Justice to strip of a person’s citizenship, without interference of a criminal law judge nor criminal investigations. So it is unclear how exactly research into a person’s second nationality is carried out in the event the Minister revokes a person’s Dutch citizenship. For more information see: Kamerstukken II 2012-2013, 33219, nr. 9, p. 2. 14