The burden of proof in the assessment should therefore be shared, so that the applicant and the authority cooperate to obtain evidence and establish the facts. It is also recommended that the standard of proof is the same as in refugee status determination procedures due to the detrimental impact of statelessness and grave consequences of an application being incorrectly rejected. This means that if it is established ‘to a reasonable degree’ that the applicant is not considered a national by any State under the operation of its law, they should be determined to be stateless.50 Under the 1954 Convention, every person is either a national of a State or stateless, so every effort should be made to prevent anyone being left in limbo and deprived of the protection of any State.51 States should also implement measures to prevent discrimination and guarantee substantive equality for women, children, people with disabilities, and other groups at risk of being disadvantaged in the procedure (including potentially due to multiple aspects of their identity or circumstances).52 This should include measures to address difficulties providing testimony and documentary evidence, assuming a greater share of the burden of proof, adhering to the best interests of the child principle, and putting additional safeguards in place such as prioritising the processing of claims by children and other vulnerable groups, providing appropriately trained legal representatives, interviewers, and interpreters, for example, in child-rights-based or gender-based interviewing techniques and aware of any cultural sensitivities or relevant personal facts about the applicant, and are of the same sex as the applicant. States should also consider that nationality laws may discriminate directly or indirectly against women and other groups, and that legislative provisions which appear gender neutral may have a disproportionately negative impact on the enjoyment of the right to nationality by women and girls. Good practice In many countries, the assessment of statelessness falls short of international standards as clear evidentiary rules are lacking or these do not take account of the difficulty of proving statelessness. However, there is some good practice, including in Hungary, Italy, Latvia, and Moldova, where the standard of proof is the same or sometimes lower than the standard applied in refugee status determination procedures.53 In Latvia, Moldova, Spain, Ukraine, France, and the judicial procedure in Italy, the burden of proof is explicitly shared between the applicant and the competent authority. In Hungary, the standard of proof requires the applicant to ‘substantiate’ their statelessness and, although the burden of proof officially lies with the applicant, procedural rules require the authorities to actively contribute to establishing the facts. In Ukraine, the burden of proof is shared between the applicant and the competent authority, which has a duty to gather information about the applicant and can request information from other agencies. In the absence of documentary evidence, the applicant’s testimony can be confirmed by third parties, and free translation and interpreting is provided if required. In Spain, the courts have played an important role in developing evidentiary rules for statelessness determination. The Supreme Court has stated that there is an ‘obvious obligation of cooperation on the