Amicus submission of the Allard K Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale School of Law 111. The Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic (hereinafter the Clinic) is a Yale Law School course that gives students first-hand experience in human rights advocacy and it has an interest in ensuring respect for the right of all people to a nationality and not to be stateless. The Clinic is particularly concerned that the deprivation of these rights is likely to undermine protection of the most fundamental rights enshrined in international human rights conventions, including the African Charter. 112. In its submission, the Clinic examines the importance and the protection of the right to nationality under international law, emphasizing the necessity for States to prevent statelessness within their borders. It submits that although the right to a nationality is not explicitly guaranteed in the African Charter., the Commission has recognized the critical role of this right in the protection of other fundamental human rights and the clinic urges that the Commission should find that there is an implicit right to nationality in the Charter. 113. Even if the right to nationality is not found to be implicit in the Charter, the Clinic submits that treaty and customary international law prohibits the denial of nationality on arbitrary or discriminatory grounds. It further outlines international and regional instruments which recognize the right to nationality, jurisprudence of various human rights jurisdictions on the right as well Declarations and Resolutions of various United Nations bodies.38 In addition to a general right to a nationality, the Clinic also emphasizes on the position of international law on the right of children to a nationality because of the vulnerability of children without a nationality. 114. According to the Clinic, there is an obligation on states to grant their nationality to any person in their jurisdiction who would otherwise be stateless. Statelessness heightens the vulnerability of individuals and infringes on their ability to enjoy a broad spectrum of other rights. The international prohibition against statelessness extends not only to those who are de jure stateless, but also to those who are de facto stateless. An individual without a nationality is denied many of the domestic protections afforded to nationals as affirmed by the Commission in Modise v Botswana. 115. Given the critical role that the right to a nationality plays in protecting other rights explicitly guaranteed by the African Charter, the Clinic urges the Commission to affirm and protect the right to a nationality by finding it to be implicit in the African Charter. According to the Clinic, the right to nationality is essential for guaranteeing other rights protected in the Charter, such as the right to freedom of movement, the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, the right to the recognition of one's legal status, the right to participate in public affairs, the right to work, the right to education and the right to be equal with all other peoples. 116. The Clinic submits further that whether or not the Commission chooses to affirm that the right to nationality is implicit in the Charter, it is clear that states may not discriminate in law or in practice when providing people with or depriving them of nationality. According to the Clinic, requiring individuals of particular ethnic or national origins to meet different, more burdensome requirements than others in order to establish their nationality or to obtain birth certificates has been found to violate the prohibition against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. It points out that States, have a jus cogens obligation, as well as international treaty obligations, to ensure that individuals are not denied nationality on arbitrary or discriminatory grounds. Even though a state's laws on their face may provide individuals with an equal right to nationality, enforcing these laws in an arbitrary or discriminatory way violates this international prohibition. 117. The Clinic concludes by submitting that if the facts in the present Communication are proven, the Commission should find that the Kenyan government has deprived the Nubians of their implied right to a nationality or find that Kenya employs discriminatory administrative practices that deny the Nubian people effective nationality and render them stateless. 15