2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(2) requirements result in long periods of legal limbo and uncertainty in the absence of effective routes to regularisation for stateless people. This is particularly relevant for stateless people who typically face obstacles in accessing documentation, providing evidence and demonstrating ties to a country, as most of them have been living on the margins of a society that refuses to acknowledge their identity. The Court has once again shown that states’ obligations towards stateless persons flow from an integrated approach to international law and human rights with due consideration to the EHCR and international legal instruments. 43 The relationship between the judgments in Hoti and Sudita Keita indicates that the Court may be constructing a consistent line of jurisprudence that has the potential to promote a harmonised and human rights-based interpretation of the core statelessness conventions. The judgment further emphasises that statelessness is a relevant factor and that states share the responsibility in identifying statelessness and facilitating access to protection for stateless persons. The Court specifically noted that the authorities should have informed the applicant of the possibility of applying for stateless status. As Sudita Keita and Hoti demonstrate, the Court is well positioned to develop regional case law on the fundamental rights of stateless persons, demanding states to establish mechanisms and procedures to adequately identify statelessness and provide stateless persons with access to the protection afforded by the 1954 Convention, as well as preventing interference with art 8 and other ECHR rights. This includes issues related with access to the procedure, information and legal assistance, due process safeguards, evidence assessment, length of the proceedings, protection throughout the procedure and further questions that have scarcely been examined by international courts. The need for further jurisprudence is magnified by the wide impact and enforceability of the Court’s judgments on national law and practice. 43 In Sudita Keita (n 1) the Court only referred to the 1954 Convention (n 4), but in recent statelessness cases the Court has also referred to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, opened for signature 30 August 1961, 989 UNTS 175 (entered into force 13 December 1975); European Convention on Nationality, opened for signature 6 November 1997, ETS 166 (entered into force 1 March 2000); Council of Europe Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness in Relation to State Succession, opened for signature 19 May 2006, CETS 200 (entered into force 1 May 2009). It also refers to mapping studies on statelessness conducted by UNHCR and other publications made by the International Law Commission and international and regional bodies. See, eg, Ramadan v Malta (European Court of Human Rights, Fourth Section, Application No 76136/12, 21 June 2016); Kurić v Slovenia (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No 26828/06, 26 June 2012). 330