through retroactive application of the law and application procedures for individuals who were born before new laws came into force. This series of reforms reflects a similar trend at the global level and there is an ongoing and active campaign in place throughout much of the MENA region to promote the correct implementation of the reforms and to advocate for similar amendments to the nationality policy in other states. Participants also pointed out that some countries have taken steps to reduce statelessness by naturalising substantial numbers of stateless persons within their territories through specific decrees. The examples discussed included Lebanon, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Oman. Nevertheless, it was noted that these policies do not prevent new cases which can still arise under unresolved gaps in the legislative safeguards against statelessness. Participants also briefly discussed efforts that are underway to prevent and reduce statelessness in the context of repatriation of refugees in the MENA region. Particular examples of positive steps in this regard are the agreements reached in the context of the return of refugees, to Mauritania and to Iraq, which provide an avenue for confirmation of nationality in order to avoid statelessness among these populations. Summarizing the session, participants drew the conclusion that while statelessness is widespread, there is cause for concern with regards to other groups and individuals standing at risk of being rendered stateless in the future. There was agreement that there is a need to look past some of the concrete causes of statelessness to the underlying core issues and to map out the situation in-depth. In addition there was a consensus for considering statelessness/citizenship versus access to- and enjoyment of rights from an action point and advocacy perspective as a potential for alleviating the current for stateless populations. 4. Human rights of stateless persons: status and documentation Ambiguity and diversity of statuses The fourth session opened by recalling the importance of identifying stateless persons and addressing the status of such individuals in order to ensure access to the full range of rights, including those connected specifically to the status of stateless person. Overall, participants noted a severe lack of attention to status determination in the MENA region – despite the accession of three MENA states to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons – and a corresponding ambiguity surrounding the legal status of many stateless persons. In part as a result of this and in part due to other factors, participants explained that the stateless population in a particular state may be comprised of different persons or groups who hold different statuses. The situation of stateless persons in Syria and Lebanon were put forward as examples of this phenomenon. In both countries, stateless persons may enjoy one of two different statuses: a registered status as “foreigner” (ajnabi) in Syria or “nationality under study” (kayd al dars) in Lebanon which reflects the fact that they are non-nationals, but does not specifically identify individuals as stateless or an entirely undocumented or unregistered status (maktoumeen or maktoum al kayd). These two distinct statuses lead to different protection situations and will require different responses. Participants also expressed their concern that stateless persons enjoy a status similar to illegal immigrants in a number of MENA countries. On the other hand, participants pointed out that some countries have put in 16