The determination of statelessness 139 body of legislation and jurisprudence indicates that ‘proving’ should be understood flexibly and a high, for example ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’, standard cannot be expected. Hungarian legislation uses the verb ‘substantiate’ (valószínűsít) instead of ‘prove’, a term borrowed from national asylum legislation and international refugee law, indicating a lower and more flexibly interpreted standard of proof.81 Some Italian court decisions also argue for a lowered standard: for instance, the Court of Appeal of Florence (Corte di Appello di Firenze) ruled in 2009 that in certain situations, in particular when the applicant has never had any nationality, circumstantial or indicative evidence (un quadro indiziario) can be sufficient for the recognition of statelessness.82 A more practical question related to evidence assessment is the circle of countries with regard to which a potential nationality tie should be tested. Evidently, this group should be limited and should only reflect realistic possibilities of nationality. To put it simply: if a woman was born in Bangladesh and lived most of her life in the United Kingdom, where she married a Pakistani national, there is no need to check whether she is a national of Ecuador or Cape Verde. Hungarian and Slovak legislation provide, for example, that statelessness shall be tested in particular with regard to the country of birth, the country or countries of former residence and the country of nationality of parents and family members.83 In the practice of Hungary, this meant a maximum of two or three countries in every case presented in 2007–2009. Italian jurisprudence has also adopted a similar approach: since the 1970s, a number of court decisions has ruled that the nationality link should be tested with regard to the country of origin and that of residence (Italy and, if relevant, the last place of residence), if there are significant ties. The general requirement of flexibility also applies to the types of evidence accepted in statelessness determination, the following types being the most frequently used: • Information provided by foreign authorities (consular authorities, civil registry offices, etc.). The main challenge linked to this type of evidence is that the authorities approached may often fail to respond within a reasonable time frame. Enduring silence could indicate a negative 81 82 83 Act II of 2007 on the Admission and Right of Residence of Third-Country Nationals, s. 79(1). Judgment no. 1654 of 17 November 2009 of the Court of Appeal of Florence. Act II of 2007 on the Admission and Right of Residence of Th ird-Country Nationals, s. 79(1); Act 404/2011 Coll. on aliens and the amendment of some laws, s. 46(3). 9781107032446c05_p116-143.indd 139 6/16/2014 3:12:03 PM