both presence which is explicitly sanctioned and also that which is known and not prohibited, taking into account all personal circumstances of the individual.80 The duration of presence can be temporary. This interpretation of the terms of the 1954 Convention is in line with its object and purpose, which is to assure the widest possible exercise by stateless persons of the rights contained therein. As confirmed by the drafting history of the Convention,81 applicants for statelessness status who enter into a determination procedure are therefore “lawfully in” the territory of a State party.82 By contrast, an individual who has no immigration status in the country and declines the opportunity to enter a statelessness determination procedure is not “lawfully in” the country. 48 80 The 1951 Convention also makes the enjoyment of specific rights to refugees conditional upon various degrees of attachment to the State, please see paragraph 29 of UNHCR, Note on International Protection, A/AC.96/830, 7 September 1994, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3f0a935f2.html According to the Robinson Commentary to the 1954 Convention, note 75 above: “It is to be assumed that the expression ‘lawfully in the country’ as used in this [1954] Convention has the same meaning as the one in the Refugee Convention”; at paragraph 5 of the Commentary on Article 15. The concept of “lawful” stay for the purposes of the 1951 Convention has been interpreted as follows and, in light of the shared drafting history of the 1951 and 1954 Conventions, also applies in interpreting the 1954 Convention: “…‘lawful’ normally is to be assessed against prevailing national laws and regulations; a judgment as to lawfulness should nevertheless take into account all the prevailing circumstances, including the fact that the stay in question is known and not prohibited, i.e. tolerated, because of the precarious circumstances of the person”. Please see in this regard the discussion of “lawfully in” in paragraph 8 of UNHCR, “Lawfully Staying” – A Note on Interpretation, 3 May 1988, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/42ad93304.html The UN Human Rights Committee has decided that an individual with an expulsion order that was not enforced, who was allowed to stay in Sweden on humanitarian grounds was “lawfully in the territory” for the purposes of enjoying the right to freedom of movement protected by Article 12 of the ICCPR. Please see Celepli v. Sweden, CCPR/C/51/D/456/1991, 26 July 1994, http://www.refworld.org/docid/51b6e7ad4.html paragraph 9.2. 81 Please see the Robinson Commentary to the 1954 Convention, note 75 above, in particular in relation to Articles 15, 18 and 31. Given the shared drafting history of the 1951 and 1954 Conventions and the extent to which specific provisions of the 1954 Convention mirror those of the 1951 Convention, it is important to note the statement of the delegate of France in explaining the meaning of the term “regularly admitted” as used in the text proposed by France which was later accepted by the drafting committee: “Any person in possession of a residence permit was in a regular position. In fact, the same was true of a person who was not yet in possession of a residence permit but who had applied for it and had the receipt for that application. Only those persons who had not applied, or whose application had been refused, were in an irregular position”. UN Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness and Related Problems, First Session: Summary Record of the Fifteenth Meeting Held at Lake Success, New York, on 27 January 1950, E/AC.32/SR.15, 6 February 1950, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/40aa1d5f2.html Whilst the term “regularly admitted” did not eventually find its way into the 1951 Convention it informed the concept of “lawfully in”. 82 Please see paragraph 72 which sets out that statelessness determination procedures are to have suspensive effect on removal proceedings for the individual concerned for the duration of the procedure until a determination is reached. The length of time an individual would be considered as “lawfully in” a country as a result of being in a statelessness determination procedure will often be short. As established in paragraphs 74-75, manifestly well-founded applications may only require a few months to reach a final determination, with first instance decisions generally to be issued no more than six months from the application.