Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2020 2(1) the decision must be specified, and such time limit must be reasonable. Applicants should have a right to the ratio decidendi, ie, the grounds on which a decision on their application was made; this/these ground(s) should be specified in writing. In case of confirmation of status, the stateless person should be guided on the next steps, such as how to process the necessary documentation, residence permit and access to naturalisation. E Assessment of Evidence and Establishment of Fact A statelessness determination procedure requires a mixed assessment of fact and law. Case officers must therefore not only assess the law as it stands on paper, but also the implementation of the law in practice, including the extent to which judicial decisions are respected by government officials. 52 It is generally up to the applicant to provide documentation from the embassy or consular offices of his/her ‘country of origin’ — the country of birth or a country that issued a prior travel document — confirming that the individual is not a national. 53 However, due to the difficulties for applicants, depending on their individual circumstances to provide sufficient facts, legislation and documents in support of their statelessness claim, the case officers are obliged to support the applicants in their quest to present a detailed and coherent case. Since it would be virtually impossible for an applicant to demonstrate that none of world’s [195] states considers him or her to be a national, case officers should also help consider states with which an applicant has a relevant link (for example, birth, descent, marriage or habitual residence). 54 To achieve this, caseworkers should adopt a collaborative, non-adversarial approach in investigating a person’s foreign citizenship. 55 States should also possess an updated collection of nationality laws and should understand their implementation in practice in order to resolve conflicts of law involving nationality. 56 The types of evidence that may be relevant can be divided into two categories: evidence relating to the applicant’s personal circumstances, and evidence concerning the laws and other circumstances in the country in question. 57 52 53 54 55 56 57 See Jessica George and Rosalind Elphick, Promoting Citizenship and Preventing Statelessness in South Africa: A Practitioner’s Guide (Pretoria University Law Press 2014) 47. See also Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (n 11) 32 [83]. Marilyn Achiron, Nationality and Statelessness: A Handbook for Parliamentarians No 11 (Inter-Parliamentary Union and UNHCR 2005) 20. See Michelle Foster, Jane McAdam and Davina Wadley, ‘Part One: The Protection of Stateless Persons in Australian Law — The Rationale for a Statelessness Determination Procedure’ (2017) 40 Melbourne University Law Review 401, 451. Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat et al, Good Practices in Nationality Laws for the Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness: Handbook for Parliamentarians No 29 (Inter-Parliamentary Union and UNHCR 2018) 21. See also Handbook on the Protection of Stateless Persons (n 11) 34 [89]–[90]. Achiron (n 53) 27. Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (n 11) 32 [83]. As for the first, UNHCR guidance provides a detailed list of examples, including the applicant’s statements, documentary and testimonial evidence, as well as information provided by other states. As for the second, it should be up-to-date and should be obtained from a variety of reliable sources. The complexity of nationality law and practice in a particular State may justify recourse to expert evidence in some cases. Gyulai, ‘Statelessness Determination and the Protection Status of Stateless Persons’ (n 27) 28–29. 95