Good practice: burden of proof on the State in Georgia In the Georgian SDP, the burden of proof is on the State. The applicant must submit all necessary documentation, such as an identity card, a travel document, documents showing lack of nationality and residence history, and has a duty to cooperate with the competent authority. The competent authority must investigate all circumstances relevant to the case and may request additional information from foreign countries or other Georgian authorities, including to assess the impact of granting statelessness status on State security. Standard of proof It is 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, particularly in the likely absence of documentary evidence. This means that if it is established ‘to a reasonable degree of likelihood’ that the applicant is not considered a national by any State under the operation of its law, they should be determined to be stateless. 39 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. 40 There are examples of good practice in Albania, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Kosovo, Moldova, and Montenegro where the standard of proof is the same or sometimes lower than the standard applied in refugee status determination procedures. In Georgia, there is no specific standard of proof for the SDP but general administrative rules apply in the same way they do in the refugee status determination procedure. In Hungary, the law sets a lower standard of proof in statelessness determination by requiring the applicant to ‘prove or substantiate’ their statelessness. Remaining barriers include that in some countries the standard of proof is explicitly higher in the SDP assessment than in refugee status determination procedures, for example, in Bulgaria, France, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. In Bulgaria, the applicant is required to ‘prove or justify’ their statelessness and there is no provision lowering the standard of proof, as there is for the asylum procedure. In the United Kingdom, applicants are required to ‘establish that they are not considered a national of any State to the standard of the balance of probabilities (that is more likely than not)’. This approach is highly problematic and creates significant obstacles for stateless people to access protection. 41 In Switzerland, the standard is ‘full proof’, rather than the lower standard applied in refugee status determination, and applicants must prove that, according to the law of the State(s) with which they have a special connection, they do not possess its nationality and cannot (re)acquire it. The Swiss courts have endorsed this higher standard of proof in recent judgments. There are also countries where the standard of proof is not established in law, leading to confusion and inconsistent practice. Child rights-based statelessness determination procedures and safeguards against discrimination States should also implement measures to prevent discrimination and guarantee substantive equality for women, children, LGBTIQ+ people, 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). 42 SDPs are also essential to identify stateless children among migrant populations and ensure that the rights they are entitled to are upheld until they acquire a nationality. States should therefore put in place measures to address difficulties providing testimony and documentary evidence, assume a greater share of the burden of proof, adhere to the best interests of the child principle, and put additional safeguards in place such as prioritising the processing of claims by children and other vulnerable groups. Vulnerable applicants should also be provided with legal representatives, interviewers, and interpreters who are appropriately trained (for