2021 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 3(1) refugees). These current standards do not make a distinction between large scale in situ statelessness or small scale in situ statelessness: In the case of stateless persons in situ, where there is a realistic 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) … 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 … For stateless individuals within their own country, as opposed to those who are in a migration context, the appropriate status would be one which reflects the degree of attachment to that country, namely, nationality. 51 In situ stateless are the largest stateless population in the world and are subject to structural discrimination, especially considering that the majority of in situ stateless population belongs to ethnic and racial minorities. This analysis concludes that naturalisation is not applicable in cases of in situ statelessness, nor are SDPs applicable in cases where nationality of in situ stateless persons is arbitrarily deprived. On the contrary, the solution for in situ stateless persons is an automatic ‘restoration of nationality and compensation … with retroactive effect to the moment of deprivation’ and, if necessary, applying a simple, reasonable and nondiscretionary procedure. 52 This means that governments should facilitate and make accessible the process of reacquisition, confirmation or restoration of nationality, 53 returning the rights lost at the moment of deprivation and compensate the affected population with damages. They should also reduce administrative costs and bureaucracy, change ‘legislation and policies to reduce or eliminate requirements for the acquisition of nationality’, assist stateless persons 51 Geneva Conclusions (n 21) 5: 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. See also at Good Practice Paper 2020 (n 3) 2–3: [f]or stateless populations in a non-migratory context who remain in their ‘own country’, often referred to as in situ populations, SDPs for the purpose of obtaining status as stateless persons are not optimal because of their long established ties to these countries … depending on the circumstances of these populations, States are encouraged to undertake targeted nationality campaigns or nationality verification efforts rather than to establish statelessness status through use of an SDP. 52 53 Procedures for Determination of Refugees and Statelessness (n 8) 106 [289]. Guidelines No 5 (n 28); Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality (n 28) 15 [14]; Expert Meeting Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention and Avoiding Statelessness Resulting from Loss and Deprivation of Nationality: Summary Conclusions (Report, UNHCR, 2013) [28], [29]; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic (Judgment) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C 130, 8 September 2005) [142]; Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (n 2) [165]; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Procedures for Determination of Refugees and Statelessness (n 8) 126 [347]. UNHCR Action to Address Statelessness (Report, UNHCR 2010) 15 [50]. <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4b9e0c3d2.html>; Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (n 2) 30 [58]. 72