d. Part E outlines the existing law on nationality deprivation and the evolution of the law; e. Part F outlines four key issues with the UK’s nationality deprivation provisions and practice: i. arbitrary deprivation of nationality; ii. lack of adequate procedural safeguards and violations of the right to fair proceedings; iii. lack of adequate safeguards against statelessness; and iv. discriminatory nature and impact. f. Part G, proposes a number of recommendations for States to make to the UK. B. Previous UPR and other relevant recommendations to the UK 5. The UK was previously reviewed during the first, 13th and 27th sessions of the UPR, in 2008, 2012, and 2017, respectively. At the 27th UPR session, the UK received several recommendations concerning issues linked to nationality deprivation, including: a. Several recommendations to review counter-terrorism and immigration laws and policies to ensure conformity with international human rights standards, and in particular to ensure that they do not target or stereotype people based on race, ethnic background, or religion, including Muslims or Muslim communities;4 and b. Several recommendations to improve access to British nationality for stateless persons in Britain.5 6. However, as explained below, the UK has made far greater use of its power to deprive people of British nationality, and shown intent to further expand these powers, since its last UPR session. 7. Several UN human rights treaty bodies have also made relevant recommendations to the UK. Most relevantly, in 2015, the UN Human Rights Committee recommended that the UK ‘review its laws to ensure that restrictions on re-entry [to the UK], and denial of citizenship, on terrorism grounds, include appropriate procedural protections and are consistent with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality.’6 The Committee also recommended that the UK ‘ensure that appropriate standards and procedures are in place to avoid rendering an individual stateless.’7 8. In February 2022, multiple UN human rights experts, including the Special Rapporteurs on racism, counter-terrorism and human trafficking, wrote a joint letter to the UK government, outlining their concerns that the UK’s existing nationality deprivation powers may be inconsistent with the international prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of nationality and incompatible with the requirements of legality, necessity, proportionality, and the provision of procedural safeguards to 4 E.g.,132.62 Ensure that all laws and policies adopted are in conformity with international human rights law and standards, including on the fight against terrorism (Botswana); 134.128 Review counter-terrorism measures which target individuals or groups based on race, ethnic background or religion, including Muslims or Muslim communities (Malaysia); 134.131 Ensure that the planned counter-extremism bill is in compliance with international law and does not single out certain organizations on the stereotypical assumption, based on general characteristics such as religion and the predominant race of the membership of the organization (State of Palestine); 134.190 Reviewing the laws on immigration in Britain in order to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Syrian Arab Republic). 5 134.53 Implement the 1954 Convention on statelessness to ensure that stateless persons in Britain access British nationality (Kenya); 134.225 Categorize statelessness as a protection status and provide stateless persons expedited and affordable access to British nationality (Hungary). 6 UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ CCPR/C/GBR/CO/7 (17 August 2015), para 15. 7 UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ CCPR/C/GBR/CO/7 (17 August 2015), para 15. 2