2021 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 3(1) Moldova, Ukraine and Turkey constitute a good practice that should be recognised, used as guidance and reinforced through further modifications of current SDP norms, implementation rules or future SDP norms adopted by states. The national civil registry system or the relevant competent authority on citizenship should have the last word on citizenship, in close coordination with the institution that conducts the SDP. Inter-institutional consultations at a national level and any administrative or judicial decision must be done without delays and should adopt a differentiated approach when applicants present vulnerabilities, such as children or persons with disabilities. An expedited mechanism on behalf of the applicant between the jurisdiction where the SDP takes place and the national civil registry system still constitutes a challenge, unless both jurisdictions and competencies are assigned by law to one state entity or agency. In addition, express safeguards on SDP legislation, such as those analysed in this article, break with the presumption that the applicant is foreign and constitute a legal basis for official statistics. The data of applicants who could be nationals of the state identified through an official SDP mechanism should be published by the civil registry system and by the authority that conducts the SDP. This information would benefit the analysis of decision makers on policies concerning nationality and statelessness. Finally, states must ensure that the recognition of nationality is the first and fastest road towards ending statelessness. Supporting state policies which move towards naturalisation, instead of recognising the right to nationality for those entitled to it, constitutes a symptom of a sickness not yet eradicated. Therefore, naturalisation as a political, humanitarian or pragmatic solution against statelessness should be avoided or adopted as a last resort. 86