15 citizenship in a short time and since the little girl is still very young, Rosa did not experience significant problems related to her daughter’s temporary lack of citizenship. The only real challenge encountered had been the lack of information. Rosa explained: “The lack of information is a big problem! Neither the municipality nor the embassy told me anything about the possibility of proceeding with the request for the Italian citizenship and about the fact that my daughter could not receive Cuban citizenship. That is why I always say that in my case the lack of information has involved both sides… both the Italian part and the Cuban one”.112 Rosa’s case illuminates some of the challenges in the Italian context,113 but Italy can also serve as a source of inspiration when it comes to the pro-active role of the authorities in helping people to claim nationality where this is subject to an application procedure. Alongside the special safeguard for otherwise stateless children which has already been outlined, Italy has such a procedure for all children born on the territory and still resident there at the age of majority – whether stateless or not. The application must be made between the ages of 18 and 19, but not everyone entitled to claim citizenship in this manner is necessarily aware of the opportunity, which has led to cases where people have missed out.114 In 2013, a new law was passed requiring that “Population register officers have, during the six months preceding the age of 18, to communicate to the child the possibility to exert his/her right to acquire Italian citizenship”. Over a period of just 16 months after this new provision was passed, the Municipality of Rome sent letters to 639 children born in Italy to foreign parents and 499 of the children to whom the letters were sent successfully made use of the opportunity to claim Italian citizenship.115 Along similar lines, in Latvia a pilot project has been initiated by the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs of sending letters to the parents of “non-citizens”116 to inform them of the opportunity to register their children as Latvian citizens. Such initiatives can serve to ensure that where nationality can be acquired by application, this procedure is used in practice. STATES WITH PARTIAL SAFEGUARDS The legislation that has been grouped together under the heading “partial safeguard” – whereby otherwise stateless children born on the territory of the state can acquire nationality, but certain restriction are imposed that are not in compliance with international standards – contains what at first sight appears to be a diverse array of problems.117 In fact, these can be divided into three types of shortcoming, although several states exhibit more than one. Safeguards with too limited timeframes The first issue relates to the procedural modalities in place and in particular to the fact that the timeframe open to apply for nationality is too limited. The application procedures of Estonia (under 15 years), Latvia (under 15 years) and Austria (between 18 and 20) are all problematic in this respect. Austria comes closest by only being a year “off” what is prescribed by the 1961 Convention (at least between 18 and 21 years). Yet, the best interests of the child also demands that children be provided with the opportunity to realise their right to a nationality at birth or as soon as possible after birth, so any application procedure which only becomes available in late childhood or even upon reaching majority is particularly problematic from the perspective of states’ obligations under the CRC.118 At the same time, closing the window of opportunity to apply for a nationality through such safeguards too early has the effect of leaving it in the hands of parents to take the necessary steps to secure a nationality for their child and may mean children are left stateless due to the lack of action on the part of their parents.119 Safeguards limited to one or both parents being of unknown nationality/citizenship or stateless The second type of issue apparent in countries with only a “partial safeguard” is more significant because it has the effect of reducing the circle of otherwise stateless children who are entitled to benefit from the provision. As shown in figure A, 11 countries offer their nationality to children born on their territory who are otherwise stateless, contingent on one or both of the parents being stateless or of unknown citizenship. This signals the states’ interest in the topic of statelessness, and a willingness to help children by providing them with a nationality. Still, limiting the grant of nationality to children of parents without or of unknown citizenship excludes any child who does not acquire citizenship due to other reasons and conflicts with the principle of non-discrimination.120 The problem of childhood statelessness is thus more complex and affects more than just those whose parents are without a (known) nationality. Moreover, through such a system, states may require the parents to first prove their statelessness, before the child can access nationality – something which, in itself, is a challenge given the scarcity and in some cases poor functioning of statelessness determination procedures in the region.121 ENS’ research into the practical application of safeguards against statelessness formulated in this way has uncovered cases in which children have been unable to benefit, despite their eligibility under the law, as the following two case studies demonstrate. FIGURE A Stateless Either Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania Macedonia Poland Slovenia Unknown Citizenship Croatia