140 • • • • Gábor Gyulai answer, yet it is difficult to set concrete benchmarks for how much time and how many unsuccessful attempts the determining authority should be allotted before arriving at this conclusion. Certainly, no reaction for a month after the first official request is sent does not, per se, substantiate the lack of nationality. On the other hand, the refusal to answer for eight months and after five official letters is likely to indicate that the person in question does not have a legal bond with the given state.84 Country information. Reliable, accurate and up-to-date information about nationality legislation and related practices in foreign countries can provide significant assistance in statelessness determination. Quality standards can be entirely borrowed from the field of asylum, with particular emphasis on individualization and the examination of actual legal practices (instead of the ‘law in the books’).85 Information provided by UNHCR. Through its global presence and relevant mandate, UNHCR may be helpful in obtaining evidence, even in cases where the competent foreign authorities remain silent. Documentary evidence. Some applicants may be able to submit proof regarding the loss of a previous nationality or a travel document, which indicates that its holder is stateless (e.g. a specific document issued to stateless Palestinians in Kuwait or Lebanon). Other documents may help in establishing the place of birth or previous residence, such that the possible country or countries of nationality can be identified. The applicant’s own submissions. Coherent and plausible statements made by the applicant should be accepted as evidence and should play a central (even if not necessarily self-sufficient) role in decision making. National practices indicate a mixed use of all these types of evidence, with a clear emphasis on the first two. 84 85 A state’s usual ‘attitude’ in dealing with such queries should also be observed: no response after several attempts from a country that is usually diligent in providing such information can be quite indicative. On the other hand, the silence of a small, badly resourced state in the middle of a grave political and economic crisis may simply be due to a general incapacity to react on any such request. See, for example, G. Gyulai, Country Information in Asylum Procedures – Quality as a Legal Requirement in the EU (Budapest: Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2011), available at: www.refworld.org/docid/4f13c5f02.html, last accessed 21 May 2014; Hungarian Helsinki Committee and International Association of Refugee Law Judges, ‘Judicial Criteria for Assessing Country of Origin Information (COI): A Checklist’, Paper for the 7th Biennial IARLJ World Conference, Mexico City (6–9 November 2006). 9781107032446c05_p116-143.indd 140 6/16/2014 3:12:04 PM