the circumstances they amount to unlawful deprivations of liberty which are arbitrary and carried out in defiance of the rule of law.62 The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly has also expressed concern regarding the deprivation of liberty by Member States through administrative decisions particularly because such decisions lack procedural safeguards and are mostly made without the knowledge and/or the presence of the person concerned.63 These interpretations correspond to the recommendations set out in the Tunis Conclusions that deprivation of nationality should only occur following a two-step process, logically beginning with a finding of guilt by a criminal court.64 The Non-Punishment Principle 50. In light of the above, the interveners submit that citizenship deprivation decisions must be considered a “penalty” within the meaning of Article 26 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and in light of the non-punishment principle recognised by this Court in V.C.L and A.N. v. the United Kingdom.65 This principle requires that victims of trafficking not be penalised for unlawful acts committed as a direct consequence of their exploitation. It also entails a procedural obligation to assess, at an early stage, whether an individual may have been trafficked before imposing measures of a punitive or adverse character. Where the conduct of the individual concerned is plausibly linked to their recruitment and exploitation as a child, deprivation of citizenship constitutes a severe punitive measure imposed without proper consideration of their potential victim status. 51. Failure to promptly and accurately identify victims of trafficking not only denies them protection, but exposes them to further harm, and to being unlawfully and disproportionately penalised for acts they were compelled to commit. Given these consequences, prompt and accurate identification is of paramount importance to discharging the duty to protect.66 Victims who were failed by the State should not be further penalised for unlawful acts they were compelled to commit. 52. While deprivation of citizenship is formally an administrative measure, its severity and consequences, including exclusion, insecurity, and exposure to harm, mean that it is, in effect, a penalty. The failure to consider whether the concerned individual’s conduct resulted from trafficking prior to depriving them of their citizenship is therefore incompatible with the requirements of Article 4 and contrary to Article 26 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. Discriminatory punishment 53. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has addressed the “indirect discriminatory effects of certain domestic legislation, particularly legislation on terrorism, immigration, nationality, banning or deportation of non-citizens from a country, as well as legislation that has the effect of penalising without legitimate grounds certain groups or membership of certain communities,” and has called on States to “eliminate the discriminatory effects of such legislation and in any case to respect the principle of proportionality in its application to persons (belonging to racial, ethnic and other minority groups).”67 The Committee has also called upon States to ensure that those belonging to specific racial or ethnic groups do not face harsher punishments if accused of terrorism offences.68 As stated by the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance “the same must be true of national origin and descent, as discrimination on both these grounds constitutes prohibited racial discrimination under [the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination].”69 54. Citizenship deprivation on grounds such as being “conducive to the public good”, notwithstanding the abovementioned obligations, creates a two-tiered citizenship system that is inherently discriminatory towards 62 UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, 'Written Evidence Submitted to the Joint Committee on Human Rights' (UK Parliament, 2023), para 6. 63 CoE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (AS/Jur), ‘Withdrawing nationality as a measure to combat terrorism: a human rights-compatible approach? Report’, AS/Jur (2018) 49, para. 5. 64 UNHCR, ‘Tunis Conclusions’ (2014), para. 27. 65 ECtHR, V.C.L and A.N. v. the United Kingdom (nos. 77587/12 and 74603/12, paras 159-161). 66 ECtHR, V.C.L. and A.N. v United Kingdom. 67 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 31, para. 4(b). 68 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 31, para. 34. 69 UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, ‘Amicus Brief before the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service’ (23 October 2018), para. 19. 10