protection by their own decision (rather than limiting their scope of review to quashing lower-instance decisions and referring cases back for reconsideration) may have a number of positive impacts. Such “full review” can help avoid lengthy appeal proceedings where cases are referred back for reconsideration several times. Moreover, it facilitates a more in-merit examination of cases and the development of useful judicial guidance not only on procedural issues, but also on material and conceptual matters. Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Moldova and Spain provide a good practice example in this regard because in these systems all appeal instances can directly grant protection to stateless persons. C) Factors to consider when designing a national system  What are the general rules of appeal (formal requirements, deadlines, place to submit the appeal, etc.) under administrative procedural law in the country? And in specific procedures that may serve as reference (for example asylum procedures)?  Do these rules ensure an effective right to appeal in case of vulnerable non-nationals applying for protection, who may not speak the official language of the country?  If not, what specific conditions or additional safeguards need to be in place for such cases?  Do rejected applicants for stateless status have access to free-of-charge legal assistance for the formulation and submission of appeal?  What is the structure of appeal/judicial review procedures in specific procedures that may serve as reference in the country? Is it carried out by a centralised, semi-centralised97 or decentralised appeal body or court system? How many instances are involved?  Asylum procedures may be relevant as well as other procedures aiming at the provision of international protection (for example humanitarian residence permit, complementary forms of protection, etc.).  What is the expected case-load?98  If the expected case-load is limited, it may be convenient to bring these cases under the jurisdiction of existing appeal bodies/courts, which have already accumulated experience in relevant matters (asylum, nationality, civil status, etc. – also depending on the profile of the envisaged population), and/or a fully centralised structure may be preferred.  If the expected case-load is significant, targeted efforts should ensure the necessary additional capacities for the appeal bodies/courts concerned.  Considering that statelessness determination is usually a new area of jurisdiction for most appeal bodies/ courts (which therefore does not make part of standard training programmes), what is the best structure toensure an effective and fast knowledge transfer? What has proved to a positive experience in past situations that may serve as reference (introduction of judicial review in asylum or naturalisation matters, establishment of a new equal treatment appeal body, etc.)? 97 Decentralised at lower, and centralised at higher instances 98 Note that all countries operating a statelessness-specific determination and protection mechanism report low figures. 33