here. It is not improbable that - as is the case with the word “authority” (to which no reference is made in paragraph 1) - they were not excluded from the text by omission. Article 25 is of importance mainly in countries of Continental law, since in common law 175 countries such documents are replaced by affidavits. it is however noteworthy that the British representative regarded the provision of this article as worth while emulating by Great Britain. The provisions of Article 25 are incumbent upon the state of residence of the stateless person who is in need of the document or certification, even if the right is to be exercised 176 elsewhere, whether it be Contracting or non-Contracting State. The word “habitual” (Articles 14, 16 (2)) is not used, indicating that permanent residence is not required. 3. The purpose of paragraph 3 is to define the import of documents or certifications delivered or caused to be delivered by virtue of paragraphs 1 and 2. The Ad Hoc Committee pointed out that “the purpose of this clause is to have the Contracting States give documents issued to refugees the same validity as if the documents had been issued by the competent authority of the country of nationality (within the country or by a consular agent abroad) of an alien or as if the act had been certified to by such authority. Such documents would be accepted as evidence of the facts or acts certified, in accordance with the law of the country in which the 177 document is presented.” The Refugee Conference amended the Ad Hoc Committee’s text by providing that such documents be given, not the “same validity” as instruments issued by the national authorities, but only credence in the absence of proof to the contrary”. In other words, such documents or certifications possess a lesser degree of validity than ordinary documents (which is inherent in the circumstance that their delivery is often based on insufficient proofs) and may be annulled or modified by contrary evidence. However, as long as such contrary evidence is not available, the documents and certifications are to serve the same purpose as official instruments of the national authorities. The words “stand in the stead of the official documents . . .” mean that the Parties to the Convention are under no obligation to deliver authentic documents (which they could not do) but only documents which in practice replace them and would allow 178 stateless persons to perform acts of Civil life. Although paragraph 3 does not say so, it must be assumed that such documents and certifications are valid in all Contracting States even if delivered by the authorities of one Contracting State. 4. It is rather unusual to make a permissive reservation to a permissive provision. The meaning of paragraph 4 is, apparently, that it is within the discretion of the proper authority in every single case to charge fees, except in regard to indigent persons, who may be exempt from the fees in a general way. 5. The issuance of identify papers and travel documents is ordinarily included in “administrative assistance”. Since special articles deal with these matters, paragraph 5 makes it clear that Article 25 is not applicable to these two services. 175 Refugee Conference, SR.11, pp. 14-15. The British representative made it clear that paragraph 2 would not require the UK to introduce a system of supplying documents of the type which would be furnished by other countries. The UK would, however, see to it that the affidavits, if used abroad, be duly legalized (SR.35, p. 9). 176 Refugee Convention, SR.11, p. 13. 177 E/1618, Comments to Article 20. 178 SR.7, p. 16.