Sudanese parents or children born to South Sudanese father and Sudanese mother do not get equal protection of the law in the Respondent State owing to discriminatory nationality law which revokes their Sudanese nationality on the ground of revocation of Sudanese nationality of their parents which is not the case for other children. 50.Due to the application of the Nationality Act, Ms Iman could not obtain Sudanese nationality as she is born to a South Sudanese father. The Respondent State hence automatically believed that Ms lman has a South Sudanese Nationality and revoked her Sudanese nationality which she is entitled to on the basis of the nationality of her Mother. Ms lman is deprived of Sudanese Nationality on the basis of the country of origin of her father. 51.Responding to the Complainants allegation, the Respondent State argued that its provisions on nationality, in particular on deprivation of nationality, do not aim to discriminate children of South Sudanese origin. Instead, the Respondent State submits, the provisions are very similar to the legislation in South Sudan and that the Republic of the Sudan is doing the same to South Sudanese nationals that the Government of South Sudan is treating Sudanese nationals with. The Committee does not find the Respondent State's argument tenable. This argument appears to suggest that because state Y is violating its child rights obligations in relation to children that are nationals of X, then State X can also do the same in relation to children that are nationals of State Y. This approach would be acceptable in some areas of laws in relation to bilateral treaties on trade, intellectual property, technology transfer etc; on matters that are outside of human rights, where the recognition of the right to retaliation can be justified under international law. However, in relation to human rights obligations, children's rights included, the Committee is of the view that, the responsibility of States is not dependent on the principle of reciprocity. As a result, the Committee does not subscribe to the argument of the Respondent State. 52.1t is the view of the Committee that such differential treatment of Children born to South Sudanese fathers, including Ms lman, from the rest of children in the Respondent State, is not in line with the very object and purpose of the African Children's Charter as it is prescribed under article 3 of the Charter, which the Committee considers as one of the cardinal principles of the Charter. In this regard, the Committee takes the view that Section 10 (2) & (3) of the 1994 Nationality Act as amended in 2011 arbitrarily deprives children a Sudanese nationality based on the country of origin of their parents. Pursuant to the above, determination to withdraw Sudanese nationality from children born to South 1 4