110 Swider and den Heijer the enjoyment of political or full socioeconomic rights, including some of the rights laid down in the 1954 Convention. It is clear, however, that State Parties to the 1954 Convention enjoy discretion in granting legal residence to stateless persons, and can set reasonable conditions on access to residence. A fourth issue with the 1954 Convention is that the catalogue of rights to be accorded to stateless persons is outdated—and outmatched by human rights treaties of general character, such as the ICCPR, the ICESCR and the ECHR. The construction used in the Convention to incrementally increase the level of rights based on the legal bond of the stateless person with the State runs counter to the basic tenet in human rights treaties and doctrine that ­fundamental rights are inherent in every human being regardless of legal or personal status. The same applies to the Convention equating the required level of treatment to that of either nationals or aliens generally. For example, the 1954 Convention requires freedom of religion and the right to education to be granted to stateless persons on par with nationals (Arts. 4 and 22); and the freedom of association is to be guaranteed on par with aliens generally (Art. 15). In some respects, the rights of the 1954 Convention remain salient however, especially those rights which see specifically to the experience of stateless persons and which cannot be found in other treaties, such as the provision on personal status (Art. 12), the right to administrative assistance (Art. 25), the right to identity papers (Art. 27) and the right to travel documents (Art. 28). Fifth, and finally, there are gaps in the treaty-based supervision framework. Contrary to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1954 Convention contains no provision on a supervisory body.31 In the 1961 Convention, Article 11 refers to the establishment of ‘a body to which a person claiming the benefit of this Convention may apply for the examination of his claim and for assistance in presenting it to the appropriate authority’. The inclusion of this provision was deemed important, for stateless persons would normally not be able to count on a State to take up their cause in their relation with other States and they would not have the financial resources or expertise to bring legal actions on their right to be granted the nationality of a State.32 A proposal to also set up a tribunal which would be competent to decide any disputes between parties as well as to hear complaints presented by the agency on behalf of stateless 31 Cf. Art. 35 Refugee Convention. It appears that the matter of creating a supervisory body for stateless persons was for procedural reasons and for failure to raise the issue, never discussed during the Convention’s drafting: Batchelor, C.A., ‘Stateless Persons: Some Gaps in International Protection’, 7 International Journal of Refugee Law (1995) 232ff at 247. 32  Ibid., at 254–256. European Journal of Migration and Law 19 (2017) 101–135