whose nationality remains unknown is registered in the Finnish Population Information System. Therefore, the provision of the Nationality Act, which sets out an obligation to make efforts to determine the nationality of those who have a home municipality in Finland, but whose nationality has been recorded as unknown, should be applied more efficiently. IT IS RECOMMENDED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE USE OF THE RESPECTIVE CATEGORIES “UNKNOWN NATIONALITY” AND “NATIONALITY NOT KNOWN” in order to limit the situations when a person’s nationality is regarded as unknown and ensure a consistent and understandable presentation of statistics and other information. These two categories sound very similar and have also in practice been used in very similar types of cases, which make it difficult to understand the rationale behind using two such similar, yet distinct definitions. “Unknown nationality” has been defined in the legislation while “nationality not known” has not been defined. Whether it is desirable to use a definition not provided for in the Nationality Act, particularly for defining many situations, should also be assessed. IT IS RECOMMENDED TO PROVIDE SPECIALIZED TRAINING ON NATIONALITY LAW AND PRACTICE, as well as on international and European standards on statelessness for officials responsible for making citizenship status determinations. More generally, it is recommended to undertake awareness raising initiatives regarding the existence of the determination of citizenship status procedure for relevant civil society organizations. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT DATA AND STATISTICS ON ALL IMMIGRATION PROCEDURES BE RECORDED AND MAINTAINED in the Population Information System and in the Register of Aliens in such a way that they reflect the actual stateless population in Finland, disaggregated by age, gender, origin and birth. This will help to better assess the situation of the stateless population and understand the scope of the problem. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT RECOGNITION OF STATELESSNESS SHOULD IN PRINCIPLE RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF A RESIDENCE PERMIT. However, it is acknowledged that in some cases it may not be appropriate to do so, for example where a stateless person enjoys the right of residence in another State and is able to return and live there with full respect for her or his human rights. A residence permit provided to a stateless person, whether the basis of it is statelessness as such or some other ground, should always be of such nature that it enables full enjoyment of the rights set in the 1954 Convention. Issuing permits of a temporary nature to stateless persons in the Finnish context should therefore be avoided. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT FINLAND REVIEWS ITS RESERVATIONS TO THE 1954 CONVENTION WITH THE VIEW TO LIFTING THEM, not least since some of them may no longer be relevant in light of developments following Finland’s accession to the Convention in 1968, and the current nationality legislation. At the same time, legislative provisions on the rights of stateless persons, in particular with regard to the right to social security for stateless persons whose stay in Finland is regarded as lawful but other than permanent, as well as with regard to right to an identity document, should be reviewed in order to ensure full compliance with the 1954 Convention. UNHCR STOCKHOLM, NOVEMBER 2014 57