36. As construed by the Economic and Social Council, this must be the correct meaning of article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that: "Everyone has the right to a nationality". Indeed in its resolution 116 D (VI) of 1 and 2 March 1948, the Council, referring to stateless persons, not only to juridically stateless persons, but, in general, including all those who cannot enjoy the rights flowing from nationality, very definitely says that such a problem demands "the taking of joint and separate action by Member nations in co-operation with the United Nations to ensure that everyone shall have an effective right to a nationality". It is obvious that de facto stateless persons do not have such an effective right to a nationality. Their nationality is utterly ineffective. Therefore, very modestly, but with profound conviction, the Special Rapporteur thinks that the terms of reference of this Commission also include the establishment of juridical means permitting to grant to de facto stateless persons an "effective" right to a nationality. 37. De facto statelessness is, of course, a de facto situation, but the Commission is bound and is also entitled to propose juridical solutions for a de facto situation especially as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to the correct interpretation given by the Economic and Social Council, aims at ensuring that every human being has the effective enjoyment of the rights of nationality. It is true that the de facto stateless person has a potential nationality but it is not less true that this juridical nationality is an ineffective nationality. It seems to the Special Rapporteur that the most important aspect of this problem of statelessness is not the technical question of nationality only, but the real situation. The juridical solution consists in bestowing upon each individual an effective nationality and the Special Rapporteur has accordingly framed article 4 of the Alternative Convention on Elimination of Present Statelessness. Needless to say that the Commission is not only obliged to deal with juridical statelessness, but is also under the solemn obligation to provide juridical solutions for the situation of thousands of human beings who are in a much worse position than those who only are de jure stateless. The Commission should face the fact and propose a legal remedy for acts of States which plunge so many persons in a desperate plight demanding an energetic legal solution such as the one proposed in article 4. The members of the Commission should bear in mind that de facto statelessness is much worse than de jure statelessness not only quantitatively but also qualitatively, because not only is it true that de facto stateless persons constitute by far the largest number of stateless individuals but it is also a fact that their condition is worse than that of the de jure stateless. They are not only deprived of the rights which derive from nationality but the mere fact that they are not technically deprived of nationality itself renders them incapable of obtaining a legal remedy under the proposed statute for stateless persons unless the Commission has the courage to face the problem and provides the said legal remedy. The present situation is that de facto stateless persons, having a nominal and ineffective nationality, are liable to be and are in fact persecuted and punished by their governments, for political or racial motives only.39 Cordova prepared for the consideration of the ILC drafts of various different Conventions and Protocols on the Elimination of Future Statelessness, the Reduction of Future Statelessness, the Elimination of Present Statelessness and the Reduction of Present Statelessness. Some of the drafts on present statelessness were particularly far-reaching, providing for a legal status of “protected persons” to stateless persons in their State of residence, with the same rights as nationals except for political rights, and with the right of naturalization under national law (albeit subject to the same conditions as required of other aliens). Children of such protected persons were to have the right to citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Additionally, the drafts provided that de facto stateless persons actually living in the territory of one of the Parties shall have the same rights as those granted to de jure stateless persons … provided that they renounce the ineffective nationality which they possess.40 39 40 International Law Commission, “Nationality, Including Statelessness – Third Report on the Elimination or Reduction of Stateless by Mr. Roberto Cordova, Special Rapporteur”, A/CN.4/81, 1954, p. 30. See Article 4 of the draft Alternative Convention on the Elimination of Present Statelessness and Article 4 of the draft Alternative Convention on the Reduction of Present Statelessness, Cordova’s Third Report, op. cit. Other drafts proposed by Cordova also referred to de facto stateless persons. See Article 5 of the draft “Protocol to the ‘Convention on the Elimination of Future Statelessness’, for the Elimination of Present Statelessness” and Article 5 of the draft “Protocol to the ‘Convention on the Reduction of Future Statelessness’, for the Reduction of Present Statelessness”. 13