citizenship, applicants for naturalisation furthermore have to fulfil additional requirements regarding integration and prior residence imposed by cantonal and municipal legislation. In sum, the process of ordinary naturalisation in Switzerland is lengthy, complicated, burdensome, costly and based on difficult material conditions. This leaves stateless persons in Switzerland without effective access to a nationality within reasonable time and is contrary to the obligation to reduce facilitate the naturalisation of stateless persons. Issue I - The Lack of a Formal Statelessness Determination Procedure 18. There is an administrative procedure to determine statelessness in Switzerland, but it is not formalised in law and there are significant gaps.37 Although Switzerland supported recommendation 146.121 in the previous UPR cycle to formalise the statelessness determination procedure and ensure that the application process is fair, effective and accessible to all persons, no tangible efforts for legal reform are apparent. 38 The identification of stateless persons is presently still governed by the general legislative framework for administrative acts, namely the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure, and the relevant practice of the SEM and the Federal courts. 39 The procedure is centralised at the federal level with the SEM being responsible for the determination of statelessness.40 Technically, the authorities have the possibility to initiate the procedure ex officio.41 However, this is rarely done in practice. Normally, the procedure is initiated if a person lodges a written and reasoned application for recognition of statelessness, including evidence. In principle, the standard of proof in the general administrative procedure is ‘full proof’. Whereas UNHCR Guidelines call for a reduced standard of proof in determining statelessness, the practice in statelessness proceedings in Switzerland is inconsistent. In some cases, the courts accepted that a claim substantiated with a reduced standard of proof has been made credible,42 whereas they explicitly rejected a reduced standard of proof in other cases.43 In compliance with UNHCR guidance, the Swiss statelessness determination procedure should provide for a shared burden of proof and the standard of proof should be reduced.44 Legally, the burden of proof is shared between the applicant and the state according to Article 12 in relation to Article 13(1) a. APA.45 However, in practice, the burden of proof lies mostly with the applicant, as the authorities often relinquish their responsibilities to gather evidence and pass them on to the applicants. It is therefore important to establish rules to give the applicant a certain foreseeability and clarity about what the process entails. 37 For more information, see: https://index.statelessness.eu/country/switzerland. UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Switzerland’, A/HRC/37/12, (29 December 2017), para. 146.121. 39 Federal Act on Administrative Procedure of 20 December 1968 (APA; SR 172.021). 40 Article 14 Organization Ordinance of the Federal Department of Justice and Police of 17 November 1999 (SR 172.213.1). 41 Article 25(1) APA. 42 Federal Administrative Court in case D-1770/2014 of February 2015; D-1912/2014 of 8 April 2015; F-1672/2015 of 22 September 2016; F-2453/2017 of 4 October 2019 and F-6478/2018 of 30 September 2020 or Federal Court in case 2C_271/2018 of 23 March 2018. 43 Federal Administrative Court in case E-1658/2013 of 14 April 2015 and E-1708/2015 of 15 April 2015. In one case the Federal Administrative Court referred both to the ordinary standard of proof as well as to the standard of credibility, case F-5127/2014 of 8 September 2016. 44 UNHCR, ‘Handbook on protection of stateless persons', (2014), note 12, para. 71 and para. 89-93, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/53b676aa4.html. 45 Federal Administrative Court in case F-2594/2017 of 21 March 2019. 38 6