Further, it is recommended that a formal procedure for the determination of a person’s status as stateless be established. In this regard, UNHCR would recommend that the Norwegian authorities consider placing such a procedure within the framework of the asylum procedure. If authorities were thus able to build upon existing structures and experiences, additional resources would generally be limited to the development of specialized competence for the determination of statelessness, and to the introduction of the procedural standards and safeguards set out in the UNHCR Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons. 3.4 Rights of applicants and recognized stateless persons 3.4.1 Rights of applicants during the statelessness determination procedure As Norway has not established a statelessness determination procedure, there are no provisions in Norwegian law governing the rights of persons applying for the status of stateless. Thus, under current Norwegian law and practice, statelessness alone does not serve as a ground for rights. Rather, the rights of stateless persons are attached to whatever residence status they are granted on the basis of, for example, international protection, a visitor’s visa, work permit, or a student permit. 3.4.1.1 DETENTION Routine detention of individuals seeking protection on the grounds of statelessness is arbitrary. Statelessness, by its very nature, severely restricts access to basic identity and travel documents that nationals normally possess. Moreover, stateless persons are often without a legal residence in any country. Thus, an individual’s undocumented status or lack of necessary immigration permits cannot be used as a general justification for the detention of such persons.139 Article 9 of the ICCPR, guaranteeing the right to liberty and security of person, prohibits unlawful as well as arbitrary detention. For detention to be lawful, it must be regulated by domestic law, preferably with maximum limits set on such detention, and subject to periodic and judicial review. For detention not to be arbitrary, it must be necessary in each individual case, reasonable in all the circumstances, proportionate, and non-discriminatory. Indefinite as well as mandatory forms of detention are arbitrary per se.140 Detention is therefore a measure of last resort and can only be justified where other less invasive or coercive measures have been considered and found insufficient to safeguard the lawful governmental objective pursued by detention. Alternatives to detention – from reporting requirements or bail/bond systems to structured community supervision and/or case management programs – are part of any assessment of the necessity and proportionality of detention. General principles relating to detention apply a fortiori to children, who as a rule are not to be detained in any circumstances.141 34 139 UNHCR, Handbook, para 112 (citing the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Report to the Human Rights Council, A/ HRC/13/30, 18 January 2010, http://www.refworld.org/docid/502e0fa62.html. In relation to stateless persons specifically, please see UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion 106 (LV1) of 2006 on identification, prevention and reduction of statelessness and protection of stateless persons, http://www.unhcr.org/453497302.html which “Calls on States not to detain stateless persons on the sole basis of their being stateless and to treat them in accordance with international human rights law… ” See ibid generally, paras 112-115. 140 UNHCR Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, para. 112. 141 Ibid, para. 113. M A P P I N G STAT E L E S S N E S S I N N O RWAY