134 Gábor Gyulai a number of reasons. Asylum and statelessness share the same characteristic of being based on international protection obligations. Asylum authorities or judges specialized in this field may prove to be better able to accept and effectively deal with the specific procedural features resulting from the protection-oriented character of the procedure, such as a lowered standard of proof or the scarcity of documentary evidence. An immigration officer, who usually operates in a stricter procedural framework, may have adaptation difficulties, especially if only rarely confronted with statelessness cases. A centralized structure and the specialization of officers dealing with statelessness determination should be supported for the same reason.66 Such merged procedures could also deal with ‘stateless refugees’, and ensure that they are processed through the most appropriate procedure.67 A further interesting question is whether statelessness determination can be performed in a purely judicial context. At the time of writing, such a system – in the framework of a functional protection apparatus – can only be found in Italy, where it exists in parallel with a largely dysfunctional administrative determination mechanism.68 Electing for the judicial determination of statelessness may raise a number of concerns, including usually lengthy delays, difficult data collection and diverging decision-making practices. At the same time, the Italian experience shows that such a framework can eventually also provide more space for a progressive, inclusive and human rights-focused approach and facilitates a continuous and fruitful professional debate on (re-)interpreting statelessness.69 66 67 68 69 See UNHCR, ‘Guidelines on Statelessness No. 2: Procedures for Determining whether an Individual is a Stateless Person’, para. 11. Note that a centralized decision-making structure should not mean a centralized access mechanism (e.g. only one or a very limited number of physical ‘points of entry’). The defi nition of a refugee in the 1951 Refugee Convention includes refugees who have lost their nationality and are stateless: Art. 1A(2), second paragraph. The administrative procedure is seldom used, as it requires the applicant to be lawfully present in Italy (see concerns regarding the similar regulation in Hungary earlier) and to present a wide range of documentary evidence. In addition it has unrealistic deadlines and the regulation does not create a clear protection obligation for the proceeding Ministry of the Interior, it just offers the possibility. See: Presidential Decree no. 572 of 12 October 1993, executive regulation of Act no. 91 of 5 February 1992 on new citizenship rules, s. 17. This conclusion is partly based on discussions with Paolo Farci, attorney-at-law, on statelessness in Italy; Budapest, 8 December 2011. 9781107032446c05_p116-143.indd 134 6/16/2014 3:12:03 PM