prospect of acquisition of citizenship in the near future, it may be inappropriate to conduct a determination of whether they are stateless, in particular where this could delay a durable solution (i.e. the grant of nationality). Design and location of statelessness determination procedures 3. Determination procedures should be simple and efficient, building to the extent possible on existing administrative procedures that establish relevant facts. Some State practice has, for instance, integrated determination of statelessness in procedures regulating residency rights. 4. In principle, statelessness determination procedures should be conducted on an individual basis. Nevertheless, there may be occasions where determination of status on a group or prima facie basis may be appropriate, relying on evidence that members of the group satisfy the stateless person definition in Article 1 of the 1954 Convention. 5. States that wish to establish a statelessness determination procedure may consider placing this procedure within a government authority appropriate not only to the national legal and administrative context, but also one that reflects the profile of the stateless population in the country in question, i.e. whether stateless persons are present predominantly in a migration or in situ context. Relevant bodies may include citizenship, immigration or asylum authorities, though in some States these issues may be handled by a single entity. Where stateless persons are present predominantly in their “own country,” the solution for those individuals in situ will generally be acquisition of the nationality of that country and the State body responsible for citizenship would likely be the most appropriate entity, subject to the considerations set out in paragraph 4 above. 6. As some stateless persons are also refugees, certain States parties to the 1954 Convention who are also party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees may wish to fuse statelessness and refugee determination proceedings. The advantages of a fused procedure include avoiding the extra costs of establishing a separate administrative procedure to deal with statelessness given the relatively low number of statelessness cases compared to refugee cases and building on the relevant expertise and knowledge already developed by authorities involved in refugee status determination. Other States might prefer to separate the procedures for determining refugee status and statelessness. The advantages of a separate procedure include awarenessraising about statelessness and developing specialization and expertise within the authority concerned as statelessness raises many issues that are distinct from those considered in refugee status determination. 7. Regardless of where a statelessness determination procedure is placed within the State structure, it is recommended that States provide specialized training on nationality laws and practices, international standards and statelessness to officials responsible for making statelessness determinations. States, in 3