REFUGEES FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION UNHCR, APRIL 2023 and 1998 in particular, UNHCR recommended in 2013 that the “ceased circumstances” clause under the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees could be invoked, although a majority of countries in the Great Lakes region, including DRC and Uganda, have decided not to do so. In some other contexts, statelessness has only become apparent when refugee status ends (or an asylum application fails), and repatriation is neither desired nor possible to arrange because of lack of proof of a nationality of origin. This was the case, for example, for former Angolan refugees turned back at the border between DRC and Angola during the repatriation process in 2010. Recognition of refugee status thus conceals the risks of statelessness created by gaps in laws and procedures relating to nationality in the countries of origin and of asylum. As a first gap, the refugee registration and status determination processes do not generally consider whether a person might be stateless or at risk of statelessness, but only eligibility for protection as a refugee. This is true in very many countries, including those considered for this report , and especially when recognition of refugee status is done on prima facie basis and not through individual determination. Secondly, there are major gaps in birth registration coverage and legal frameworks. Birth registration is the most authoritative evidence of the facts on the basis of which nationality may be determined. Although the laws of all three countries considered in this report establish the right to free and compulsory birth registration, with no exclusion for refugees or children of other foreigners, birth registration rates have historically been low in all three countries. While these rates are increasing for current births, only in Rwanda is there a systematic effort to carry out late registration for all births of refugees (including for adults) that have taken place in the country of asylum. However, universal birth registration in itself is not sufficient to resolve statelessness, especially if the nationality of parents is uncertain or undocumented or if the child cannot acquire their nationality. In many countries, including DRC and Rwanda, national laws and procedures provide that the nationality of children born outside the country will only be recognised if the parents register the birth with the consulate, or the foreign birth certificate is transcribed into the civil registry of the country of origin. Special procedures to bypass these formal legal requirements are usually incorporated into the tripartite agreements for “comprehensive durable solutions” (including repatriation or local integration) made between UNHCR and the governments of the countries of origin and asylum of the refugees. But the situation is different outside of such contexts. Refugees cannot easily approach the embassies of their country of origin, since it may put at risk their refugee status; and almost all are in any event unaware of such requirements. Because the interpretation of the law of another country in relation to attribution of nationality to a child born abroad is a complex question, not within the competency of a civil registrar, UNHCR does not recommend that birth certificates record the nationality of a child. In any event, a record of the nationality of parents or child mentioned in a birth certificate issued by the country of birth does not bind the authorities of the country of origin of the parents. These problems related to birth registration and conflicts of law increase risks of statelessness and impede durable solutions for long-term refugees – yet they lack clear international guidance for their resolution. Thirdly, there are important gaps in the nationality laws of all three countries, and their implementation in practice, especially in relation to protection against statelessness for children born in their territory. All three countries provide in principle for a child of unknown parents found in the territory (a foundling) to be granted nationality. To provide real protection against statelessness, it is important that this protection apply not only to newborn babies. It is positive, therefore, that Rwanda defines a foundling as any child “without comprehensive information pertaining to the identity of his or her parents or his or her origin”. However, this protection is restricted to newborn children in DRC, and to children under five in Uganda. Although the nationality code in DRC provides for the right to nationality for children of stateless parents, and for those born in the territory to be able to acquire nationality at majority, there are no procedures to allow these provisions to be implemented in practice. Rwanda’s 2021 nationality law establishes the most comprehensive protections against childhood statelessness. However, the law also imposes the requirement that all children must apply for recognition of nationality, rather than providing for (automatic) attribution of nationality by operation of law in most cases, potentially leaving some children at risk of statelessness even if both their parents are Rwandan nationals. Uganda establishes no general 2