The individual whose nationality is withdrawn should also be provided with written
reasons for the withdrawal in a language they understand.
Whereas Article 8(4) of the 1961 Convention requires that individuals be afforded
a fair hearing in situations where deprivation of nationality would result in
statelessness, the due process element of the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of
nationality includes the provision of a fair hearing in all cases of withdrawal of
nationality. This right to a fair hearing includes the ability to appeal decisions made at
the first instance.113
The determination of whether a person is stateless is neither a historic nor a
predictive exercise. The question of whether a person is stateless according to the
definition of a stateless person in Article 1 of the 1954 Convention is to be assessed
at the time that a withdrawal of that person’s nationality occurs.114 Therefore, where
requirements or procedures for loss, deprivation or renunciation of nationality have
only been partially fulfilled or completed, the individual must still be considered a
national. A decision to withdraw nationality should be suspended while legal
proceedings are ongoing, such that the individual continues to enjoy nationality – and
related rights – until such time as the legal proceedings have concluded.115
Where States impose immigration sanctions (including detention, travel bans and
other restrictions on freedom of movement and confiscation of identity documents) as
a result of withdrawal of nationality, there should be a periodic review of whether these
measures are proportionate to the aim being pursued by the State in withdrawing
nationality. At a minimum, individuals should never be arbitrarily detained, for example,
without periodic review of whether detention is a proportionate measure in all the
circumstances of the case. This is the case both while legal and/or administrative
proceedings are ongoing and after a final decision is taken.
Wherever the question of permissibility of withdrawal of nationality involves
determination of an individual’s possession or acquisition of another nationality,116 a
State wishing to rely on the fact that an individual is a national of another State should
Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General, 19
December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, para. 32.
113 See e.g., Anudo Ochieng Anudo v Republic of Tanzania, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights,
Application No. 012/2015, 22 March 2018, https://www.refworld.org/cases,AfCHPR,5d7bb4784.html, para. 116;
and Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the SecretaryGeneral, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, para. 32.
114 UNHCR Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons 2014, para. 50.
115 See e.g., Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the
Secretary-General, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, para. 33: “Access to the appeals process may become
problematic and related due process guarantees nullified if the loss or deprivation of nationality is not suspended
and the former national, now alien, is expelled. Similarly, if withdrawal of nationality results in the loss of property
rights, the individual may have to forfeit his home or business, as well as other acquired rights – an interference
which may be difficult to repair if it is subsequently established that the loss or deprivation of nationality was
unlawful or arbitrary and must be reversed.”
116 See paragraphs 80-83 above.
UNHCR > GUIDELINES ON STATELESSNESS NO.5
31