7. In the absence of a procedure to identify stateless persons, some stateless people may be among those who through no fault of their own cannot be returned to any country. The current “no-fault procedure” therefore allows some stateless people to receive a residence permit on non-removability grounds, but is not a substitute for a statelessness determination procedure. 8. A dedicated statelessness determination procedure, in which the burden of proof is shared between the individual and the State, would solve problems related to the unclear status of many stateless people in the Netherlands. It would make the extent of statelessness in the Netherlands more visible and enable appropriate solutions to be found for the individuals concerned. If, in the end, a person is determined to be stateless, depending on assessment of solutions, a residence permit should be issued to ensure access to the rights set out in the 1954 Convention. It may, for instance, be appropriate to grant a residence permit similar to the one issued at present following a successful no-fault procedure. 9. As concerns the prevention of statelessness, the study finds that it is arguable that the Dutch Nationality Act’s requirement of legal stay for stateless children born in the Netherlands who wish to exercise their right to apply for Dutch nationality, is not in accordance with Article 1 of the 1961 Convention, which contains requirement of no lawful residence. 10. In addition, Dutch nationality can in principle not be revoked if this would result in statelessness. The one exception to this principle, namely the rule that Dutch nationality can be revoked if it was acquired by fraud, is allowed under the 1961 Convention. Considering the particular hardship of statelessness as described in the report, UNHCR would nevertheless recommend that the Netherlands apply a proportionality test which takes the effects of a revocation of Dutch nationality fully into account, if such an act were to result in statelessness. 11. The reduction of cases of statelessness is also an important subject for UNHCR. It is therefore welcome that stateless people in the Netherlands have facilitated access to Dutch nationality in the sense that only three years of legal stay are required, although they must also meet a number of other integration requirements. 12. The protection of stateless people in the Netherlands is a concern in many cases, depending in particular on the residence status of the individuals concerned. This is related to absence of effective procedures for the identification of statelessness in the Netherlands, but even those who have been determined to be stateless do not always enjoy the rights to which they are entitled. The interviews conducted for this study revealed that a number of respondents faced trouble in accessing essential healthcare and in acquiring means of identification. UNHCR proposes that in a future statelessness determination procedure, claimants be provided with means of identification. Similarly, applicants should be furnished with identity cards for the duration of the “no-fault procedure”. 13. In the absence of a procedure to determine statelessness, some people are unable to secure legal stay and are at risk of detention. Detention in alien detention centres has proven to be frequent and lengthy. The repetitive nature of the process – detention, absent prospect of deportation, release with an order to leave the country, arrest and potential declaration of undesirability for illegal presence, again detention – can be daunting. 14. Finally, the research showed that a number of people who are not stateless but who cannot be returned through no fault of their own do want to return home. UNHCR therefore recommends that in such situations cooperation with countries of origin for the facilitation of repatriation be stepped up. 2 Mapping statelessness