administrative procedure. Whereas, UNHCR Guidelines call for a reduced standard of proof in determining statelessness, the practice in statelessness proceedings has been inconsistent. In some cases the courts accepted that a claim substantiated with a reduced standard of proof has been made credible,39 whereas they explicitly rejected a reduced standard of proof in other cases.40 The burden of proof is shared between the applicant and the state. 19. UNHCR guidance clearly stipulates that statelessness determination should only be concerned with whether the person has nationality at the time of determination: An individual’s nationality is to be assessed as at the time of determination of eligibility under the 1954 Convention. It is neither a historic nor a predictive exercise. The question to be answered is whether, at the point of making an Article 1(1) determination, an individual is a national of the country or countries in question. Therefore, if an individual is partway through a process for acquiring nationality but those procedures are yet to be completed, he or she cannot be considered as a national for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention.41 However, as alluded to above, Swiss authorities apply a narrow interpretation of the definition of statelessness. It is often assumed that applicants would have the possibility to – in future – acquire the nationality of their country of origin which results in a rejection of the application.42 Swiss practice also requires that a person lost their former nationality through no fault of their own, which is in contradiction to the 1954 Convention.43 Furthermore, in order for an application to be considered, the applicant has to demonstrate a legitimate interest in determining his or her statelessness.44 The current practice in principle denies a legitimate interest where a person has already been recognised as stateless by another State Party of the 1954 Convention, has a right remain in such a state while not having a particular connection to Switzerland, has, against his or her allegations, a nationality or if the person concerned would not receive more favourable rights by being recognised as stateless.45 The decision taken by the SEM can be appealed at the Federal Administrative Court and in second instance to the Federal Court.46 The procedure is written in one of the official languages. Parties have the right to be heard and to an interpreter if necessary. The procedure is free of charge. Free legal aid can be granted if a person lacks the necessary means, legal representation is necessary to secure that person’s rights and if a request or 39 Federal Administrative Court in case D-1770/2014 of 16 February 2015, D-1912/2014 of 8 April 2015 and F-1672/2015 of 22 September 2016. 40 Federal Administrative Court in case E-1658/2013 of 14 April 2015 and E-1708/2015 of 15 April 2015. In one case the Federal Administrative Court referred both to the ordinary standard of proof as well as to the standard of credibility, case F-5127/2014 of 8 September 2016. 41 UNHCR, Statelessness Handbook (note 12), para 50. 42 See e.g. the judgment of the Federal Court in case 2C_763/2008 of 26 March 2009 concerning a person that was born in Iraq but lived most of his life in Lebanon, or of the Federal Administrative Court in case C-1048/2006 of 21 July 2010 concerning a Tibetan refugee who was born in Nepal or in case BVGE 2013/60 of 18 September 2013 concerning a group of Roma from Bosnia and Hercegovina. 43 UNHCR, Statelessness Handbook (note 12), para 51. See e.g. the judgment by the Federal Court in case 2C_1/2008 of 28 February 2008, or the Federal Administrative Court in case C-2139/2013 of 30 September 2014. 44 Article 25(2) APA. 45 State Secretariat for Migration, Manuel Asile et retour, F5 – Demande de reconnaissance du statut d’apatridie, available at https://www.sem.admin.ch/dam/data/sem/asyl/verfahren/hb/f/hb-f5-f.pdf, p. 9. See also the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court in case F-1672/2015 of 22 September 2016. 46 Federal Act on the Federal Administrative Court of 17 June 2005 (SR 173.32) and Federal Act on the Federal Court of 17 June 2005 (SR 173.110). 7