statelessness throughout the determination procedure and not only during judicial proceedings. This aspect, together with the right to an individual interview, were considered important to improve both the quality and the efficiency of decision-making. 14. The issue of burden of proof was underlined during the exchange of views. Participants and invited speakers illustrated the particular difficulties encountered by applicants to prove that they do not have any nationality. Experts recommended that the burden of proof in a statelessness determination procedure should be shared between the state and the individual, as the state is usually better equipped to conduct necessary investigations, including enquiries of other states. Considering a broad range of legal and factual evidence which the applicant might be able to provide is essential, including the testimony of the applicant, and, if available, any marriage certificate, military service record, school certificates, medical certificates, identity and travel documents of direct relatives, and record of sworn oral testimony of neighbours and community members. The standard of proof must take into account the inherent challenges in proving statelessness, and therefore statelessness should be established to a “reasonable degree”. 15. Special attention was given to the specific evidentiary challenges encountered by children and women during statelessness determination procedures and the need to avoid any discrimination, in particular for victims of abuse or exploitation, and for unaccompanied children. Reference was made 16. Attention was also drawn on the situation of persons classified of “unknown/ undetermined nationality”, as these persons are often locked in limbo without any rights or status. In this respect, participants referred to the recent decision of the UN Human Rights Committee Zhao v The Netherlands of 28 December 2020, in which the Committee was of the view that it was not acceptable to register a child as of undetermined nationality for a period longer than 5 years. The Committee concluded to a violation of article 24(3), read alone and in conjunction with article 2(3) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This decision echoed the principles set out in the UNHCR’s Guidelines on Statelessness No. 4 Ensuring Every Child’s Right to Acquire a Nationality through Articles 1-4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. 17. A general point was made on the need to have better data and statistics on stateless populations and on persons of undetermined nationality. The available data categories differed considerably. Taking into account the limited coordination existing in this area, a suggestion was made that the Council of Europe could consider convening a discussion on statelessness data in Europe (including other relevant stakeholders, such as Eurostat). The role of regional civil society networks in providing data, resources, tools, analysis to support states/stakeholders was also noted. 10