territory at the time of the State succession and who have or would become stateless as a result of State succession.” Paragraph one of Article 8 considers the situation in which it is impossible or very difficult for a person to fulfill the standard requirements of proof to meet the conditions for the acquisition of nationality. In some cases, it might be impossible for a person to provide full documentary proof of his/her descent if, for example, the archives of the civil registry have been destroyed. It might be impossible to provide documentary proof of the place of residence in cases where the place of residence was not registered. This provision also covers situations where it might be feasible for a person to provide proof but it would be unreasonable to demand such proof, for example, if providing proof would put the applicant’s life or health in danger. Circumstances that make it difficult to provide proof are not always directly linked to the event of State succession. They may be the consequences of an event that occurred before or after the succession, for example, when, under the regime of the predecessor state, the civil registry was destroyed or essential documents were not issued to a certain segment of the population. In all these instances, a high probability of proof and/or independent testimony shall be sufficient for fulfilling the conditions to acquire the nationality of a successor State. Paragraph two of Article 8 is only relevant when the predecessor State has disappeared and all persons possessing the nationality of that State have lost that nationality as an automatic consequence of the State’s dissolution. If the new successor State prevents or reduces the number of multiple nationalities, the State might require proof from the person concerned that he/she has not acquired another nationality or that he/she is stateless. The requirement to prove that a person does not possess another nationality or is stateless is often impossible to fulfil, since it depends upon the cooperation of other States. If there is a risk that the person concerned might become stateless as a result of State succession, the successor State should not require proof that the person concerned does not have another nationality or that the person is stateless before granting that person citizenship. This rule is based on the predominant view that preventing statelessness is the primary concern of the international community, while the acceptance or rejection of multiple nationalities is a matter to be decided by each individual State. These provisions do not prevent a State that wants to reduce the number of multiple nationalities in its territory from cooperating with other States and exchanging information on the acquisition and loss of nationality. Multiple nationalities may be countered through the provision on non-recognition of another nationality found in the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws and through Article 7.1.a of the European Convention, which sets out the possibility of automatic loss of nationality when a person voluntarily acquires another nationality. A State may also ask the individual concerned to make a written statement declaring that he/she does not and will not possess another nationality. That will enable the State to annul its own citizenship if/when it is later discovered that the person concerned has made a false declaration. 36