be unable to prove her nationality.150 A similar problem may also be faced by, for example, unaccompanied children, and become particularly acute if the unaccompanied child is so young as to be unable to provide any information at all about his or her origins, e.g. if the child is a foundling. Other people may have travelled abroad using false documents, or have deliberately destroyed their documents upon embarkation or arrival.151 In other cases, the authenticity of even genuine documents may be questioned.152 Yet other people may remain inside the country of their nationality but still have difficulty identifying themselves because, for example, their documents have been destroyed or are inaccessible due to an armed conflict, or they may never have been issued documents in the first place.153 150 151 152 153 See UNHCR, “UNHCR’s Activities in the Field of Statelessness: Progress Report”, EC/51/SC/CRP.13, 30 May 2001, para. 18: “The trafficking of women has also given rise to problems related to the establishment of their identity and national status. Trafficked women may have their documents stolen or destroyed either on arrival in a third country or prior to transfer, often making it impossible to prove their status when they try to re-enter their country. They may be placed in detention in the country to which they have been transported illegally, and may linger there for years because of the refusal by the country of citizenship to readmit them in the absence of evidence of their nationality, and refusal by the country of detention to release them without proper documentation. UNHCR has assisted in the resolution of a number of such cases recently, but the vast majority of such problems go undetected. Enhanced cooperation among states, based on the establishment of proper procedures and criteria, as well as greater flexibility with respect to documentation requirements, could help to promote appropriate and early solutions so that women who have already been victimized do not suffer further isolation.” For further information, see the references in footnote 149 above. See, for example, CBC News, “Suad Hagi Mohammed’s detention in Kenya: Canadian government under fire for handling of case”, 21 August 2009, http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/08/12/f-haji-mohamudtimeline.html (accessed on 1 April 2010). See, for example, Brookings Institution – University of Bern: Project on Internal Displacement, “Protecting Internally Displaced Persons: A Manual for Law and Policymakers”, October 2008, Chapter 11, pp. 157 – 168; “Action Sheet 2: Civil Status and the Prevention of Statelessness” in Global Cluster Protection Working Group, “Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons”, provisional release, December 2007, pp. 171 – 179. See also Article 8(1) of the 2006 Council of Europe Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness in relation to State Succession: “A successor State shall not insist on its standard requirements of proof necessary for the granting of its nationality in the case of persons who have or would become stateless as a result of State succession and where it is not reasonable for such persons to meet the standard requirements.” The Explanatory Report to the aforementioned Convention states in relation to Article 8(1) of that Convention: “32. The provision takes account of the situation where, due to the particular circumstances which might occur in the situation of State succession, it is impossible or very difficult for a person to fulfil the standard requirements of proof to meet the conditions for the acquisition of nationality. 33. It might in some cases be impossible for a person to provide full documentary proof of his or her descent if, for instance, the civil registry archives have been destroyed, or it might be impossible to provide documentary proof of the place of residence in cases where this was not registered. The provision includes the situation where it might objectively be feasible for a person to provide proof but where it would be unreasonable to demand for instance an action by a person which might put his or her life or health in danger. 34. The circumstances which lead to the difficulty in providing proof in order to meet the requirement are not necessarily always linked directly to the event of the State succession. It might be the consequence of an event that occurred before or after the time of the State succession, for instance where under the regime of the predecessor State a registry was destroyed or essential documents were not issued to a certain group of the population. 35. In the cases mentioned above it shall be sufficient to have a high probability of proof or independent testimony that the conditions for the acquisition of the nationality of a successor State are fulfilled.” 43