is contained in the Refugee Convention. In connection with the latter, an amendment was suggested by the Danish representative in the Ad Hoc Committee who had in mind the case of a refugee who arrived in Denmark clandestinely and was anxious to go elsewhere but could not obtain a visa without a travel document. Under the Danish proposal, the state of “illegal stay” should be able to issue to such a refugee a travel document which would be valid under Article 28 and would, in turn, impose on the issuing state an obligation to 205 readmit the refugee if he was not permitted to stay in the country to which he proceeded. This view was accepted by the Committee because it was discretionary with the state of “illegal” or temporary stay to issue or not to issue such a document: therefore, it did not impose on them any obligation which they were not willing to assume in the specific case. While sentence 2 thus creates advantages for the stateless persons, it also may result in disadvantages: if applied literally, this may induce governments to refuse the issuance of travel documents under Article 28 (1), second sentence and para. 6 (3) of the Schedule for fear that the stateless person may decide to return, even if he is authorized to remain in the country to which he is seeking admittance. There would, however, seem to be no reason why the stateless person could not renounce the return guarantee or why, under separate agreements with the admitting state, the obligation of the issuing state to readmit the refugee could not be excluded. (9) Paragraph 14 permits Contracting States to apply to stateless persons their laws and regulations concerning departure from, admission to, sojourn in, and transit through their territory. Under this paragraph, these laws and regulations prevail except that a stateless person, holder of a valid travel document, must be readmitted, if his travel document so states. Obviously, para. 14 cannot be in contradiction to Article 28, i.e., no other conditions for the issuance of travel documents can be laid down than prescribed in Article 28 (1). In other words, para. 14 cannot be interpreted as extending to stateless persons the specific legislation or regulations governing the issuance of national passports, including instances . which issuance of a passport may be 206 refused. However, if under existing laws, other requirements are prescribed for exit (for instance, compliance with the tax laws, police certificates, etc.), they may be applied to stateless persons in the same way as to others. In substance, para. 14 covers much the same grounds as do paras. 13 (2) and 9. Nonetheless, it was considered by the Refugee Conference to be wider in scope than the latter, because the words “laws and regulations” are of far broader application than 207 “formalities". It is doubtful whether the words “subject only to the terms of para. 13” are in keeping with the real situation. It is obvious that, insofar as transit is concerned, para. 9 is a restriction on para. 14. (10) Paragraph 16, first phrase, does not appear to confer any rights upon the refugee, nor 208 take away anything from him because the rule laid down there is of universal acceptance. Paragraph 16 deviates from the same paragraph in the Refugee Convention - the words ipso facto in the second phrase were added by the Stateless Persons Conference. This 209 was done on the basis of a Belgian amendment which sought to eliminate the words 205 SR. 16, para. 44; Cf. ibid. paras. 47, 54, 55. 206 This was made clear by the Belgian representative in the Refugee Conference, who refused to accept the AustralianCanadian amendment (A/CONF.2/66) because it would have permitted a state to refuse the issuance of a travel document for the same reasons as allowed it to withhold a passport from a national (SR.17, p. 6). 207 SR.33, p. 4. The contention of the High Commissioner in the Refugee Conference that para. 9 (2) was redundant in view of para. 14 was valid, but his suggestion to omit it was not acted upon for fear that para. 9 (1) could be construed as an unconditional obligation to issue transit visas (SR.33, pp. 4-5). 208 The reason why the Ad Hoc Committee seemed to have originally retained it was that it did not wish to eliminate it without knowing what its actual purpose was (SR.18, para. 55 ff). Later it was accepted by that Committee to allay the fears expressed by some governments and to avoid disputes over protection (SR.24, paras. 16-20). 209 SR.11, p. 18.