THEMATIC BRIEFING | SEPTEMBER 2021 Statelessness determination and protection in Europe 15 part of the Administration’ and that it is enough for applicants to ‘manifest their lack of nationality’.54 Some countries have introduced measures to prevent discrimination against children and people with disabilities, but there is little or no evidence of effective measures to guarantee substantive equality for women and other groups at risk of (multiple) disadvantage(s) in SDPs. Ukrainian law recognises the additional support needs of unaccompanied minors, people with disabilities, and people with language, literacy, or health-related barriers. For example, draft bylaws (yet to be adopted) provide for the possibility of the competent authority to carry out a home visit or visit to a medical institution to interview the applicant. In Moldova, minors may be assisted by a representative, parent, or guardian, and people with disabilities can be accompanied by a carer. GOOD PRACTICE Flexible evidentiary requirements in Latvia The standard of proof in the Latvian SDP is the same or lower than in the asylum procedure. The burden of proof is shared between the applicant and the competent authority (the Office of Citizenship & Migration Affairs (OCMA)). The law also provides that the relevant OCMA decision-maker may decide to grant statelessness status even if the applicant is unable to submit any of the required documents due to reasons beyond their control.55 Barriers Burden of proof on the applicant Despite the international norms and good practice recommending a shared burden of proof when determining statelessness, several countries, including Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Italy place the burden of proof on the applicant. In Italy, the burden of proof is shared in the judicial procedure but lies with the applicant in the administrative procedure. In the United Kingdom, guidance requires the authorities to assist vulnerable applicants, such as children, to gather evidence, but this is not implemented consistently. In Italy and Switzerland, there are no measures to address the potential evidentiary challenges in proving their statelessness faced by (multiply) disadvantaged groups, resulting in a significant risk of discrimination. High standard of proof In Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and France, the standard of proof is higher in the SDP assessment than in refugee status determination procedures. In the United Kingdom, applicants are required to “establish that they are not considered a national of any State to the standard of the balance of probabilities (that is more likely than not)”. This approach is highly problematic and creates significant obstacles for stateless people to access protection.56 In Switzerland, the standard of proof in the SDP assessment is ‘full proof’, rather than the lower standard applied in refugee status determination.