2021 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 3(1) citizenship. 23 TP has not acquired Italian citizenship because his is not married to an Italian citizen, does not have an Italian father or mother, nor has he acquired Italian citizenship by filiation or according to any other grounds of acquisition provided for by law. He does not even qualify for naturalisation. Finally, the Tribunal stated that no other state considered TP a citizen, given that Tibet has not existed as an autonomous geopolitical entity for many decades. 24 ANALYSIS This case aligns with recent Italian case law, which attributes stateless status to those who do not have the citizenship of any of the states with which they have maintained relevant relationships. 25 This approach limits the evidential investigation to two fundamental elements: the non-acquisition or loss of citizenship of the state of origin and the failure to acquire that of the state (or states) of residence or domicile. With this in mind, the Tribunal of Rome tried to overcome the probative difficulties of showing negative proof of TP’s statelessness by using all available means, including the presumptions set out in the case of AA v Ministero dell'Interno. 26 This ruling specifies that, for the purposes of ascertaining statelessness, a formal act of withdrawal of nationality is not required. 27 The Court accepted, however, that circumstantial evidence could be used in similar determinations; asking the applicant to provide thorough evidence that no state considered them a citizen would be ‘diabolical’. 28 Statelessness can not only be caused by a formal act of the state of origin, but also by situations which, although not amounting to express administrative acts, result in denial of state protection to the individual. These situations, in which an authority substantially deprives a person of citizenship, can amount to denial of a person’s ability to exercise their fundamental rights as recognised under the 1954 Convention, 29 as well as art 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 30 Furthermore, the Tribunal of Rome dealt with the difficulty of proving TP’s status as a stateless person by adopting a protection-oriented approach. 31 Specifically, as TP was unable to provide direct evidence demonstrating nonpossession of Indian citizenship through a certificate, the Tribunal of Rome 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Law of 5 February 1992, No 91 ‘New Rules on Citizenship’, 133(38) Gazzetta Ufficiale 1992 (Italy). Until 1950 Tibet was an independent theocratic sovereign state ruled by the Dalai Lama. In that year the People's Liberation Army, headed by the People's Republic of China led by Mao Zedong, invaded Tibet. In 1959 in Lhasa, the People's Liberation Army crushed a revolt forcing the Dalai Lama to flee to India where he formed the Tibetan government in exile. The Tibetan Government in Exile (Central Tibet Administration) has been operating in Dharamsala in India since 1960 and represents the traditional government of Tibet. See Colin P Mackerras, People’s Republic of China: Background Paper on the Situation of the Tibetan Population (Report, Writenet and UNHCR February 2005) <https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/423ea9094.pdf>; Hungdash Chiu and June Teufel Dreyer, ‘Tibet: Past and Present’ (1989) 4(93) Maryland Series in Contemporary Asian Studies 1. See Decreto 23 Giugno 1988 (1989) Giurisprudenza Italiana 699 (Tribunal of Turin). Sentence No 14918 (n 19). ibid. TP v Minister of Home Affairs (n 4) 2. Case No 2242/2013 (First Civil Section, 7 September 2013) (Tribunal of Salerno). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UN GAOR, 3rd sess, 183rd plen mtg, UN Doc A/810 (10 December 1948) art 15. TP v Minister of Home Affairs (n 4) 2–3. 96