A/HRC/34/30 conform to traditional gender roles or who belong to a religious minority, and have called on States to ensure that no one is subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. 34 In addition, several contributions to the present report referred to counter-terrorism laws that have granted authorities the power to criminalize freedom of expression, including for human rights defenders, which has led to an increase of arbitrary arrest or detention. 35 As stressed by the Human Rights Committee, the right to take proceedings for release from unlawful or arbitrary detention applies to all detention by official action or pursuant to official authorization, including counter-terrorism detention.36 25. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention voiced its concern at the continuing tendency towards deprivation of liberty by States abusing states of emergency or derogation, invoking special powers specific to states of emergency without formal declaration, having recourse to military, special or emergency courts, not observing the principle of proportionality between the severity of the measures taken and the situation concerned, and employing vague definitions of offences allegedly designed to protect State security and combat terrorism. 37 2. Impact on freedom of movement and on the right to a nationality 26. In response to growing concern about the threat of terrorism, some States have expanded the administrative powers that allow for deprivation of nationality for crimes related to national security, while others have considered amending their domestic laws, with implications, in some cases, for the right to freedom of movement and the right to a nationality. 38 For example, several States have taken a wide range of administrative and legislative measures to deter individuals who have or who are seeking to become foreign fighters, including blocking the validity of travel documents, revoking citizenship, freezing financial assets, imposing travel bans and introducing exclusion orders to prevent their own nationals or permanent residents from returning. 39 27. One contribution to the present report highlighted a draft legislative proposal under consideration to amend the nationality act. The contributor expressed concern that the proposal did not offer adequate legal protection, included terms that did not provide a sufficiently clear and precise legal basis for the withdrawal of nationality, and would have a discriminatory effect by distinguishing between citizens who had dual nationality from those who did not — a distinction that risked stigmatizing those with an immigrant background.40 Another contribution referred to the revocation of citizenship on charges of terrorism against individuals, which reportedly included peaceful dissidents, human rights defenders, journalists, academics and religious scholars. 41 28. The Human Rights Committee considers that the right to freedom of movement embraces, at the very least, an individual who, because of his or her special ties to or claims 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 8 See A/64/211 and Corr.1, para. 27; A/HRC/28/66/Add.1, paras. 49 and 67; A/HRC/16/53/Add.1, para. 100; and E/CN.4/2005/61/Add.1, para. 152; also the contribution from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. See contributions from Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain; Fédération internationale de l’Action des chrétiens pour l’abolition de la torture; and the International Centre for Justice and Human Rights. See the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 40. See A/HRC/7/4, para. 59. See A/HRC/25/28, para. 13; A/HRC/28/28, paras. 51-52; A/HRC/33/43/Add.2, paras. 16, 50 and 92; A/70/330, para. 70; and A/71/318, paras. 21-24. See A/HRC/28/28, para. 50; and A/70/330, paras. 68-69. See contribution from the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights. See contribution from Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain.