132 Gábor Gyulai It is therefore especially promising that the three statelessness-specific protection regimes created in 2012 all make important steps towards a proper solution for this lacuna. The law of Moldova stipulates that ‘the applicant has the right to stay on the territory of the Republic of Moldova during the examination of his/her claim and may only be removed from the territory for reasons of national security and public order’. Moreover, it foresees the issuance of a temporary residence permit for the duration of the determination process.59 Georgian legislation also prohibits the expulsion of applicants until a decision is made, as well as explicitly stipulating that the applicant’s stay shall be considered lawful, even if she or he was staying in the country unlawfully upon the submission of the claim.60 The Philippines have also adopted rules ordering the suspension of deportation measures during status determination and offering a (non-mandatory) possibility to release the applicant from immigration detention, if relevant.61 Whilst the problem is apparent, it is difficult to argue for a fully fledged applicant status solely on the basis of the 1954 Convention, mostly because this instrument remains entirely silent about determination issues. Relevant UNHCR guidance does, however, offer support: ‘An individual is a stateless person from the moment that the conditions in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention are met. Thus, any finding by a State or UNHCR that an individual satisfies the test in Article 1(1) is declaratory, rather than constitutive, in nature.’62 This means that a stateless individual does not become a stateless person through the status determination procedure, but is rather recognized as being a stateless person. As a matter of principle, therefore, she or he is already entitled to the rights defined in the 1954 Convention.63 Meanwhile, as van Waas concludes, the convention’s formulation of rights seriously endangers the actual enjoyment of these rights. The precondition of entitlement is usually, at least, lawful presence (if not an even more substantial connection with the state), and instead of 59 60 61 62 63 Act 200 of 16 July 2010, on the Regime of Foreigners in the Republic of Moldova, ss. 873 (1)–(2). Decree of the President of Georgia No. 515 of 27 June 2012, s.7(2). Department Circular No. 058 – Establishing the Refugees and Stateless Status Determination Procedure, Department of Justice, 18 October 2012, s. 7. UNHCR, ‘Guidelines on Statelessness No. 1: The Defi nition of ’Stateless Person’ in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons’, para. 9. The same line of argumentation is usually followed when interpreting the 1951 Refugee Convention: See UNHCR, Handbook on Criteria and Procedures for Determining Refugee Status (1979, reissued 1992 and 2011), para. 28. 9781107032446c05_p116-143.indd 132 6/16/2014 3:12:02 PM