46. 42 - 48 PART ONE meaning of the terms employed in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention. The same is true if the individual’s nationality status changes as a result of a fraudulent application by the individual or one which inadvertently contained mistakes regarding material facts. For the purposes of the definition, conferrals of nationality under a non-automatic mechanism are to be considered valid even if there is no legal basis for such conferral.29 However, in some cases the State, on discovering the error or bad faith involved in the nationality procedure in question, will subsequently have taken action to deprive the individual of nationality and this will need to be taken into account in determining the State’s position of the individual’s current status. The impact of fraud or mistake in the acquisition of nationality is to be distinguished from the fraudulent acquisition of documents which may be presented as evidence of nationality. These documents will not necessarily support a finding of nationality as in many cases they will be unconnected to any nationality mechanism, automatic or non-automatic, which actually was applied in respect of the individual. (xi) Impact of appeal/review proceedings 47. In instances where an individual’s nationality status has been the subject of review or appeal proceedings, whether by a judicial or other body, its decision must be taken into account. In States that generally respect the rule of law,30 the appellate/review body’s decision typically would constitute the position of the State regarding the individual’s nationality for the purposes of Article 1(1) if under the local law its decisions are binding on the executive.31 Thus, where authorities have subsequently treated an individual in a manner inconsistent with a finding of nationality by a review body, this represents an instance of a national’s rights not being respected rather than the individual not being a national. 48. A different approach may be justified in countries where the executive is able to ignore the positions of judicial or other review bodies (even though these are binding as a matter of law) with impunity. This may be the case, for example, in States where a practice of discriminating against 29 This situation must be distinguished from one where a non-national is merely treated to the privileges of nationality. 30 “Rule of law” is described in a 2004 Report of the UN Secretary-General as: … a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards… Please see, UN Security Council, The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies: Report of the Secretary-General, 23 August 2004, S/2004/616, http://www.refworld.org/docid/45069c434.html, paragraph 6. 31 The exception would be where under the domestic law the judicial finding is only a recommendation and is not binding in nature on the authorities. 19