SOLVING STATELESSNESS as registering births does not seem to have a negative effect on the acceptance rate. In fact the majority of the recommendations on identity documents also refer to birth registration. In contrast, recommendations on gender discrimination which refer specifically to discrimination in nationality law are no less likely to be accepted than those that refer generally to gender discrimination.59 The low acceptance rate of such recommendations perhaps reflects the extent to which positions on this matter are entrenched. For those considering strategic engagement with the UPR this suggests that there is unlikely to be a “gain” in terms of increased likelihood of acceptance of recommendations on gender discrimination by omitting specific references to nationality law. In contrast, it seems that keeping recommendations on birth registration separate from questions of nationality, statelessness and specific groups improves the likelihood of their acceptance. An additional factor to consider in relation to the UPR is the State which makes the recommendation. Notable “champions” in this regard include Mexico with respect to birth registration, Slovenia with respect to recommendations to accede to the Statelessness Conventions, and the Nordic countries with respect to the elimination of gender discrimination from nationality laws. Making a recommendation is a public act and indicates the interest of the recommending State in that particular issue. Some States choose to consistently make recommendations on a particular topic. While this is beneficial in ensuring that topic is addressed regularly, there is a risk that it will be neglected if the priorities of that State change. In other cases the recommendations made reflect the particular situation in the SuR or at least the most discussed concerns in relation to that State, with a proportionally higher likelihood that recommendations will be rejected. Which State makes a recommendation can also affect the acceptance or rejection of that recommendation. For instance, the fact that recommendations on gender discrimination in nationality law have predominately been made by Western and Latin American States to Arab States may be a factor in the high level of rejection of these recommendations. It 59 Included with these recommendations are those relating to the withdrawal of reservations to Article 9 of CEDAW. Where such recommendations refer specifically to Article 9 they are counted as being recommendations on the right to a nationality, where they refer generically to withdrawing reservations but do not cite specific provisions they are counted as broadly relevant recommendations. 33