450 Melbourne University Law Review [Vol 40:401 There is no basis in the 1954 Convention for setting time limits for individuals to claim protection as a stateless person.260 Further, like refugee and complementary protection claims, stateless status determinations should be subject to independent merits and judicial review.261 Other procedural safeguards should include access to information (in various languages) about eligibility criteria, the procedure and possible outcomes; the right to an interview with a decision-maker; assistance with preparing and presenting applications, including access to legal assistance and interpreters/translators; the right to confidentiality and data protection; and written reasons for decisions, communicated within a reasonable time.262 Individuals should not be removed prior to a final determination (including appeals).263 C Evidentiary Requirements In light of the challenges many individuals face in demonstrating that they meet the ‘stateless person’ definition, including access to evidence and documentation, applicants should not bear the sole responsibility for establishing the relevant facts.264 Rather, this burden should be shared by the applicant and the decision-making authority.265 That authority must identify which authorities in the relevant third state are competent to establish nationality,266 and the weight to be attached to the response or lack of response from the state in question.267 For instance, a state may not feel any accountability for indicating that a person does not have a bond of nationality, and a refusal to acknowledge that someone is a national might itself be evidence that the person is not.268 Decision-makers must consider not only the nationality law of a given state, but also the practice in that state with 260 UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, above n 20, 28 [70]. France, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Mexico, Moldova, the Philippines, Slovakia, Turkey and the United Kingdom do not set time limits for individuals to claim protection as stateless individuals: Gyulai, ‘ENS Guidelines’, above n 136, 14. 261 UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, above n 20, 29–30 [73]–[74], 30 [76]. 262 Ibid 27–8 [66], 28–9 [71], 29–30 [73]–[75]; Batchelor, ‘The 1954 Convention’, above n 23, 42. 263 UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, above n 20, 29 [72]. 264 Ibid 34–6 [87]–[94]; UNHCR, Geneva Conclusions, above n 136, 4 [13]. The Australian government recognised this in Onshore Protection Consultative Group, ‘Statelessness: Extract of Issues Paper’, above n 14, cited in McAdam, ‘Position Paper’, above n 238, 6 [26]. 265 See, eg, the practice in the Philippines: Gyulai, ‘ENS Guidelines’, above n 136, 26. 266 UNHCR, Prato Conclusions, above n 136, 3 [13]. 267 UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, above n 20, 36 [98], 33 [86]. 268 Batchelor, ‘The 1954 Convention’, above n 23, 37.