7 CONCLUSIONS Conclusions drawn from the legal and statistical analysis can be divided into four main groups as follows: 1 Limits of statistical records and estimates of the number of stateless persons Stateless persons are, to a certain extent, recorded in publicly available official statistics. However, difficulties were encountered when determining the exact number of stateless persons and obtaining further information about them. The data provided by different authorities varied from one another. The differences in data were caused by the following factors: (1) the official registers are not interconnected; (2) in some cases, the statistical code lists were inadequately structured so they did not indicate statelessness; (3) errors were made in the completion of statistical forms and sometimes nationality codes were wrongly assigned to stateless persons; (4) a separate category was created for stateless Palestinians. Moreover, while the statistics do not record persons staying irregularly in the country, which applies to many stateless persons without any documents, the phenomenon of statelessness cannot be fully captured. This gap makes the most vulnerable stateless persons virtually invisible to the authorities, diminishes its presence in the country and the necessity to be addressed. Nevertheless, analysis of the research data allows for an estimation to be made of up to 1,500 stateless persons in the Czech Republic in total. 2 Shortcomings in national implementation of the obligations under the 1954 Convention The legal status of stateless persons and of the applicants for the statelessness status is not appropriately regulated by national legislation in force. First and foremost, there is no definition of a stateless person in national legislation, which causes further legal and statistical discrepancies. This is followed by the lack of a dedicated statelessness determination procedure that would open a door to one of possible permanent solutions for stateless persons in the migratory context. These shortcomings in the national implementation of the obligations pursuant to the 1954 Convention have specific consequences on the accessibility to the rights as well as on the legality of relevant administrative and judicial procedures. Finally, no status or residence rights ensue from the recognition of statelessness within the relevant procedures and the awareness of the authorities and courts about the legal position of stateless persons, still not recognized as a specific group, remains rather low. 3 Absence of an effective mechanism to identify stateless persons and ensure protection of their rights The procedure provided for in Section 8 (d) of the Asylum Act according to which a person can apply for the determination of statelessness is limited in its practical effectiveness. In fact, by November 2018 it only existed on paper and was not used in practice. According to the information obtained during the research, the MoI has not undertaken any steps in any of the proceedings. Lodging an application pursuant to Section 8 (d) of the Asylum Act, therefore, has not secured the fulfilment of the State’s obligations under the 1954 Convention. In some cases, persons who have lodged the application under Section 8 (d) of the Asylum Act have been placed in detention and have been issued with (another) decision on administrative expulsion. There was, thus, no legal guarantee that expulsion would not take place until a final decision in the proceedings under Section (d) of the Asylum Act is rendered. The question of what the proceedings meant for the applicants and what the outcome will be also remain unclear under the current legislation. The lack of transparency of this procedure represented an obstacle to lodging applications for the determination of statelessness status and to the efforts of stateless persons who seek to achieve a formal recognition of their legal status. 48 Faces of Statelessness in the Czech Republic