28 | PROTECTING STATELESS PERSONS FROM ARBITRARY DETENTION IN BULGARIA 4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The issue of statelessness is gradually gaining momentum following Bulgaria’s February 2012 accession to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Bulgaria does not yet have a statelessness determination procedure in its national legislation, but a draft law was tabled in Parliament in 2016. While these developments are welcome and should be encouraged, there are a range of issues that expose stateless persons to a high risk of arbitrary detention in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian authorities do not yet identify statelessness before subjecting persons to immigration detention. The destination country, to which an illegally staying person is to be removed, is determined in the process of enforcing the removal order, after detaining the person. On the other hand, upon detention stateless persons are often ‘assigned’ to a certain country of origin, from which they have come to Bulgaria. This practice not only makes it difficult to measure the exact number of stateless detainees in Bulgaria. It also contributes to the prolonged and unnecessary detention of stateless persons. By law and in practice, in issuing a detention order the authorities do not consider the existence of reasonable prospects to implement the removal order. As detention is usually imposed automatically along with the removal order, the right to be heard as part of the rights of the defence of detainees is not respected. Although the law formally stipulates that detention is a measure of last resort and it can be imposed provided that less coercive measures could not be applied effectively, that provision remains only on paper. Detention is applied as a measure of first resort, while alternatives to detention are considered last. When extending the length of detention in six-month blocks (up to 18 months), Bulgarian courts do not exercise strict scrutiny as to whether the authorities have taken reasonable actions with due diligence in order to implement the removal order. In the majority of cases the burden of proof has been shifted to the detainee to prove that there is no reasonable prospect of removal. As stateless persons tend to be detained for longer periods, they have to endure poor conditions of detention for longer as well. No improvement in the conditions in Bulgarian immigration detention centres has been documented over the years. Some of the accounts amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. It is particularly worrisome that Bulgaria detains large numbers of unaccompanied and accompanied children, in spite of the legal ban on detention of unaccompanied children. Finally, even when released back in Bulgaria, stateless persons, like