75. In reply, the Respondent State contends that nationality is the legal affiliation of a person to the State and that the law of the Respondent State spells out the modalities of its attribution, loss and forfeiture. 76. The Respondent State affirms that the contested Order does not relate to nationality and does not restrict proof of nationality. It concludes that there is no impediment to the right to nationality. *** 77. The Court notes that Article 15 of the UDHR provides: “1. Every individual has the right to a nationality… 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality, nor denied the right to change his nationality…”. 78. The Court reiterates, as stated in Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. Tanzania24 and Robert John Penessis v. Tanzania,25 that the right to nationality under the UDHR applies as a binding norm to the extent that the instrument has acquired the status of a customary international law. 79. The Court also indicated in Robert John Penessis v. Tanzania that although the Charter does not contain an express provision on the right to nationality, Article 5 thereof provides that “Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status …”. In this regard, the Court found that the term “legal status” in this article includes the right to nationality.26 80. The Court recalls that the granting of nationality is a matter of State sovereignty and therefore each State determines the requirements for the granting, enjoyment and withdrawal of nationality in line with relevant 24 Anudo Ocheng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 March 2018) 2 RJCA 248, §76. Robert John Penessis v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 RJCA 593, § 85. 26 Ibid, § 89. 25 20