lawyers may not have competence regarding statelessness, particularly because they generally work on matters funded through legal aid. Detained persons also face significant barriers in gathering evidence required to prove statelessness, such as letters from embassies of countries of possible nationality. When interviews with embassies occur, they are not recorded; no independent person accompanies the applicant; and no or limited attempts are made to confirm information given by the detainee. Additionally, as discussed above, some detained stateless persons may not be recognised as stateless due to flaws in the procedure. Such persons may be detained for long periods because they cannot be removed from the UK. We are also aware of a case in which a stateless person was detained for more than three years; the Home Office resisted his release for six months after formally recognising him as stateless and only pursuant to a Court order.62 28. Recent ENS research confirms that UK authorities sometimes detain stateless persons for years, even where the person clearly is not imminently removable and there is no lawful basis for continued immigration detention.63 ENS’s research indicates that some stateless persons receive compensation after judicial challenges finding that their detention was unlawful. For example, ENS’s report highlights the case of a man of Guinean/Gambian origin held in immigration detention for three and a half years. Although he cooperated with removal efforts, neither the Guinean nor the Gambian Government recognised him as a citizen. The British Government nevertheless kept him in detention and continued seeking to remove him. Eventually, he successfully challenged the legality of his detention and was awarded damages.64 Notwithstanding the possibility of successful judicial challenges, the UK courts sometimes permit significant flexibility to the Government regarding the reasonableness of lengthy immigration detention. In a recent case concerning a man of Western Saharan origin, the Administrative Court found lawful the 10 months of detention at issue, in part because the Government continued making efforts to remove the applicant (notwithstanding the evident futility of attempted removal to Western Sahara, not a State recognised by the UK).65 Furthermore, we note that release and/or monetary awards for unlawful detention only partially redress the harm done by long-term immigration detention. Socio-economic rights for persons granted leave to remain based on statelessness 29. The UK does not ensure to stateless people the full range of socio-economic rights guaranteed under the 1954 Convention and international human rights law, in particular rights to education and housing. With respect to educational rights, the UK’s position is not in line with Article 22(2) of the 1954 Convention, which states: The Contracting States shall accord to stateless persons treatment as favourable as possible and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances, with respect to education other than elementary education and, in particular, as regards access to studies, the recognition of foreign 62 This case arose in 2008 and was resolved in 2011, prior to the implementation of Part 14 of the Immigration Rules. 63 See 'Protecting Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention in the United Kingdom' (note 44). 64 See ibid. 65 ML (Morocco) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2177 (Admin). The Tribunal also took into account that the applicant was considered at high risk of absconding and re-offending. 12