A/80/205 15. Penalization for belonging to a particular religion can be embedded into citizenship laws themselves, for example by hindering the conferment of citizenship for persons belonging to a particular religion 21 or by empowering the Government to strip citizenship from individuals residing abroad and engaging in acts vaguely deemed to be “contrary to the political, economic or social interests” of the country. 22 16. Denial or revocation of citizenship or nationality on the basis of religion or belief is contrary to the principle of non-discrimination as enshrined in the corpus of international human rights treaties and also has gender-specific consequences. Under article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to nationality is guaranteed and the arbitrary deprivation of nationality is prohibited. The right of children to acquire a nationality is protected under article 24 (3) of the Internationa l Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 7 and 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under article 9 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the deprivation of any person or group of persons of their nationality on religious grounds is explicitly prohibited. B. Displacement, refugee camps and asylum centres 17. Violations of freedom of religion or belief can lead to forced internal displacement, which can, in turn, constitute an ongoing violation of freedom of religion or belief, and precipitate even further such violations. 18. In the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, internally displaced persons are defined as “persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their home or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border”. 23 Protection for such persons should include protection from displacement, protection and assistance during displacement, and return or resettlement and reintegration, 24 and such protection must also be considered through a freedom of religion or belief lens. 19. According to jurisprudence from regional human rights systems, the eviction of Indigenous Peoples can amount to “an unjustifiable interference with the freedom of religion”. 25 It has also been established that Indigenous Peoples’ identities are based on “their unique relationship with their traditional lands”, which underscores their claims to those lands. 26 The forcible displacement of Indigenous Peoples has also led to their inability to bury their dead, conduct spiritual rituals 27 and carry out their cultural and religious practices. 28 __________________ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6/23 A/75/385, para. 27. See also communication OL IND 2/2019. Confidential submission. E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2, para. 2. Ibid., para. 1. See www.african-court.org/cpmt/storage/app/uploads/public/5f5/5fe/9a9/ 5f55fe9a96676974302132.pdf. See www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_214_ing.pdf . See also A/77/514. See www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_124_ing.pdf . After a military massacre of an Afro-religious community, which led to the displacement of the survivors, the Inter -American Court of Human Rights found that the inability to bury the dead or perform spiritual rites violated the right to conduct cultural and religious practices. See www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_328_ing.pdf . The Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that the State had failed to take adequate steps to ensure the community’s return after the Government forcibly displaced many people and killed all Mayan priests in a village, leading to the loss of cultural and religious practices. See also A/HRC/58/49, sect. IV.B.2. 25-11829