160 marinai fact, the Court has repeatedly stated14 that the burden of proof on the applicant to prove the status of statelessness must be considered to be mitigated, in the sense that any gaps or any need for additional information can be filled in by the exercise of investigative powers by the judge, which can be achieved by requesting information or documentation from the competent public authorities of the Italian State or of the State of origin or of the State with which a significant connection with the applicant for statelessness can be identified. Such a burden on the judicial authority must be inferred from a constitutionally oriented interpretation of the internal and international legal framework, which leads to the granting to stateless persons of similar rights to those affirmed in favour of applicants for international protection in order to implement their right to a free and dignified life. If the person concerned were required to prove that he or she was not a national of any State, the relevant proof, being negative in nature, would be almost impossible to obtain, both because of the number of States in the international community and because it would have to be renewed ad infinitum, since it concerned a circumstance (namely, the possession of a nationality) that could change at any time and would therefore undermine the established status of statelessness.15 However, the Corte di Cassazione has also pointed out that the principle that the burden of proof should be mitigated does not exclude the fact that it is up to the applicant to allege specifically not only the condition of being a noncitizen of the State or States with which he or she has or has had significant links, but also the absence of the legal or factual prerequisites which allow recognition of the status civitatis by those States.16 This kind of reasoning is in line with the unhcr’s statement that the burden of proof for determining statelessness must be shared, with the consequence that the applicant and the examiner must cooperate to obtain evidence and to establish the facts.17 14 15 16 17 on European Migration Law, 2015, No. 1, pp. 30–31; Foster and Lambert, International Refugee Law and the Protection of Stateless Persons, Oxford, 2019, p. 113. See e.g. Corte di Cassazione (Sez. VI-1 civile), Halilovic Olga v. Ministero dell’Interno, 3 March 2015, No. 4262; Tribunale di Brescia, J.M. v. Ministero dell’Interno, Order of 7 January 2019; Tribunale di Firenze, XX v. Ministero dell’Interno, Order of 22 July 2020; Tribunale di Bologna, XX v. Ministero dell’Interno, Order of 24 October 2020; Tribunale di Roma, XX v. Ministero dell’Interno, of 28 May 2021. See e.g. Tribunale di Firenze, XX v. Ministero dell’Interno, Order of 2 February 2020; Tribunale di Roma, XX v. Ministero dell’Interno, Order of 16 February 2021. See Corte di Cassazione (Sez. I civile), M. v. G., 24 November 2017, No. 28153, and Corte di Cassazione (Sez. I Civile), Ministero dell’Interno v. M.S., 18 January 2018, No. 1183. unhcr, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, cit. supra note 3, p. 34. The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law 2 (2022) 154–162