Breaking the Presumption analysis of a case? What SDP norms have been established in this regard? What standard of evidence should be applied? 75 Within the 23 SDP norms identified for this article, eight countries have expressly incorporated a safeguard within their SDP norms to address cases where the applicant is suspected to be, or identified as, a national of the same country. These countries are: Costa Rica, Panama, Paraguay, Argentina, Turkey, Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine. The following Part discusses and briefly analyses each of them, despite the current challenges of monitoring, reporting and implementing the safeguard articles. Costa Rica: Executive Decree No 39620 of 2016 ‘Regulations for the Declaration of the Status of Stateless Persons’ (‘Decree No 39620’) 76 Article 12 of the Decree No 39620 states: The Ministry [of Foreign Affairs] should verify, as soon as possible, if the applicant for statelessness recognition is registered in the civil registry as Costa Rican and that there is no reliable proof that he or she possess another nationality, within a period of no more than 15 business days starting from the date of the opening of the case, the correspondent certification will be issued to Migration and Foreigners Office in order to proceed with the issuance of a provisional document certifying the applicant is under a process of statelessness status recognition. Decree No 39620 requires the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ‘verify, as soon as possible’ with the national civil registry system whether the applicant could be a national of Costa Rica. 77 This disposition does not rely on the discretion of SDP authorities to conduct a consultation concerning birth registration and nationality — the consultation is compulsory and institutionalised as part of the procedure itself. While the answer from the national civil registry system is pending, and within 15 days from the date of application for statelessness status recognition, the applicant shall receive a provisional document certifying that the application ‘is under a process of statelessness status recognition’. 78 The legislation is silent on the suspension of the SDP while the answer from the national civil registry system is pending. For this reason, it seems in practice, the response from the civil registry system is expected to be provided in an expedited manner. 75 It is important differentiate between two concepts ‘burden of proof’ and ‘standard of proof’: burden of proof in legal proceedings refers to the question of which party bears the responsibility of proving a claim or allegation … In the case of statelessness determination, the burden of proof is in principle shared, in that both the applicant and examiner must cooperate to obtain evidence and to establish the facts … Given the nature of statelessness, applicants for statelessness status are often unable to substantiate the claim with much, if any, documentary evidence … the standard of proof or threshold of evidence necessary to determine statelessness must take into consideration the difficulties inherent in proving statelessness, particularly in light of the consequences of incorrectly rejecting an application … finding of statelessness would be warranted where it is established to a ‘reasonable degree’ that an individual is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law … stateless will not be established to a reasonable degree where the determination authority is able to point to clear evidence that the individual is a national of an identified State. 76 77 78 Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (n 2) [89]–[93]. Decreto Ejecutivo No 39620 de 2016 ‘Reglamento para la Declaratoria de la Condición de Persona Apátrida’ ['Executive Decree No 39620 of 2016 ‘Regulations for the Declaration of the Status of Stateless Persons’] (Costa Rica) (‘Decree No 39620’). ibid art 12. ibid art 4(d). 77