governments of Sierra Leone (at the end of 2008), Angola and Liberia (in 2012) and Rwanda (in 2013). Following this assessment, UNHCR then enters into agreements with the countries of refuge on measures for one of three “durable solutions” for the refugees concerned: voluntary repatriation, local integration, or resettlement in a third country (which depends both on the particular circumstances of the individual and their ongoing security needs, and on the willingness of a third country to accept the refugee). On invocation of the cessation clause by each host government, the refugees become simply foreigners with the same status (and requirements to regularise their status) as any other foreigner. In the case of Liberians and Sierra Leoneans, or others who held refugee status in another ECOWAS country, a residence permit is still required in theory; but in practice it may be possible to remain without such a permit, provided the person has identity documents of some sort. Since Rwanda is not part of ECOWAS, those Rwandans who remain in West Africa have a more precarious status if they do not obtain documentation legalising their stay in the country of refuge. The difficulty of obtaining a residence permit varies by country, but can be challenging where systems are not in place or the permit has to be obtained from the capital city. In principle, refugees are usually eligible to naturalise according to the usual terms of each country’s nationality laws; but in practice this can be very difficult to obtain (see further above, section 3.3), especially if they do not have the assistance of UNHCR, leaving some at risk of statelessness. Refugees may also have a desire to retain the principal identity of their country of origin, even in the context where dual nationality is allowed, although this decision leaves their children vulnerable.195 Where a person has simply used the ECOWAS free movement provisions and never registered as a refugee, there is then no record of their presence at such time as the cessation clause is invoked, or if they wish to apply for naturalisation. 4.4.1. Mauritanian refugees in Senegal and Mali In 1989/1990 the Mauritanian government expelled approximately 70,000 black Mauritanians alleging that they were illegally present in the country. Among those expelled, it is plausible that there would have been some who held Senegalese nationality documents and others whose parents had held such documents (and thus were entitled themselves to Senegalese nationality); but the great majority had previously been recognised as Mauritanians and had no entitlement to Senegalese nationality, even if they had family links across the River Senegal that forms the border between the countries. The Mauritanian identity documents of the expellees were systematically destroyed in the course of these expulsions.196 Senegal still hosts some 13,700 Mauritanian refugees, and Mali more than 12,000, of whom some 8,000 have expressed the wish to return home. UNHCR provided assistance to Mauritanian refugees in northern Senegal until 1995 and facilitated the return of 35,000 people to Mauritania from 1996 to 1998. Although the cessation clause has not been invoked, a change of government in Mauritania led 195 Jennifer Byrne, “Should I Stay or Should I go? National identity and attitudes towards local integration among Liberian refugees in Ghana”, Refugee Survey Quarterly, 2013, Vol.32, No.1, pp.50-73. 196 Human Rights Watch, Mauritania’s Campaign of Terror: State-Sponsored Repression of Black Africans, New York, 1994; Report of the Mission of the Special Rapporteur on Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Internally Displaced Persons in Africa to the Republic of Senegal, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2005; David Stone, Enhancing livelihood security among Mauritanian refugees in Northern Senegal: a case study, UNHCR, 2005.. 59