A. T HE R IGHT TO NAT IONALIT Y FOR EV E RY INDIV IDUAL be considered prima facie satisfied.92 A strict burden of proof .. .. .. must then lie on the state to prove the contrary i.e. that they are not nationals of India, since the means to verify such a claim lie exclusively with the state.93 Such a shared burden of proof mechanism endorsed by the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘ACtHR’) must be followed in relation to the precarious citizens in Assam as well.94 People excluded from the NRC are citizens of India and shall be treated accordingly until all their appeals are exhausted. Treating them as foreigners violates their right to nationality. The State should organise training of judges, lawyers, NRC officials, and FT members on substantive aspects of India’s international law obligations on nationality and statelessness. The State must also provide accessible materials (leaflets, field actions) to ensure that people facing arbitrary deprivation of nationality know their rights and the procedural aspects of Indian law in this regard. 92  Anudo Ochieng Anudo (n 21) [80]. See also Robert John Penessis v United Republic of Tanzania App no 013/2015 (ACtHPR, 28 November, 2019) [90] - [96]. 93  Anudo Ochieng Anudo (n 21) [80]. See also Robert John Penessis (n 92) [90] - [96]. 94 ibid. chapter i • status 65 SECTION I.A.4