unlawful delays caused by the MoI, which was ordered to render a decision in the matter.92 Nearly a year after this decision, he has received no reply from the Ministry. Furthermore, the interviewed stateless persons pointed out that their legal status during the statelessness determination procedure was not regulated and that they received no identity document which they could use to demonstrate that they were applicants. They expressed bewilderment and surrender, hoping that their residence status would be regulated in some way during the procedure. « « The last hope I had was the procedure on determination of statelessness status [note: procedure under Section 8 (d) of the Asylum Act]. At the same time, I filed an application for a tolerated stay visa. They dismissed it after 30 days because my name is in that register [note: the register of undesirable persons]. The lawyer told me that the Ministry does not react on my application for statelessness status. I have no other hope. Now I have no hope.” I wish they gave me some kind of residence permit after I filed that application. I wish they gave me some permit until they decide. (…) This is what I am waiting for. Any type of visa, so I could move freely. This is all. Now, I am stuck.” The filing of the application for determining statelessness did not protect the persons concerned against repeated decisions on administrative expulsion and deprivation of liberty with a view to removal, attempts of which have proved to be unsuccessful. Two interviews took place in the detention centre, where the interviewed persons were detained even after having filed the applications under Section 8 (d) of the Asylum Act. In the past, both persons had already been repeatedly deprived of liberty with a view to executing the expulsion orders. Another interviewed person received a third decision on administrative expulsion while his application under Section 8 (d) was pending. In none of these cases was the lodged application for statelessness taken into account. The interviews further revealed that potential applicants could be deterred from lodging the application for determining statelessness on account of unclear procedural rules before the Ministry upon lodging the application pursuant to Section 8 (d) of the Asylum Act, as well as the lack of awareness of the existence of such a procedure. One of the interviewed persons noted that there are more stateless people who were not actively solving their situation because they did not know how. « I know that I am not the only one [note: stateless person]. There are more people like me here, but they are so ... If you would do something for them, they would come, because now they are just sitting around and ... Even I would just sit around if it was not for my friend who helped me, because you just don´t know where to go. You don’t. (…) There are more such people, but they just sit around and do nothing because they do not know what to do.” 5.4 Practice of relevant authorities in the eyes of stateless persons The analysis showed that the State authorities have insufficiently addressed the situation of the stateless persons interviewed in the study. According to the interviewed persons, the authorities were not willing to take their specific situation as stateless persons into account and that State officials were reluctant to process their cases or addressed their cases inconsistently. Thus, interactions with State officials often revealed stateless persons powerlessness alongside a lack of clearly established procedural rules that, if put in practice, would facilitate better orientation in the situation and lead to stateless persons comprehending the steps needed to be taken. 92 Judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague of 29 November 2017, no. 10A 155/2017. The judgment is not publicly available. UNHCR Czech Republic 35