Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/08 statelessness-specific protection systems—where the law foresees a protection status, but the SDP has not been elaborated yet—include Belgium, Slovakia, and Switzerland. Bulgaria’s recently introduced SDP, due to the significant flaws in the legislative framework, cannot be considered effective.14 By reviewing the existing procedures, it is possible to draw a conclusion on good practices as well as to identify potential pitfalls when establishing an SDP. The European Network on Statelessness, having scrutinised and compared the various SDPs in the world, emphasises that there is no single ‘best practice’.15 On one hand, every effort to address statelessness is welcome; on the other hand, the existing procedures still suffer from certain shortcomings. An important common characteristic of the procedures is that they define statelessness as a separate ground for protection.16 The set of rights provided all contain the right to lawful residence, identity documents and a set of social and economic rights.17 Differences ensue in the type of authority in charge of the decision and the sophistication of the procedural framework.18 The regulation of rights and duties of stateless persons takes place predominantly within the sphere of migration law, because stateless persons are non-citizens in every country.19 Consequently, the identification and protection of stateless persons can be regulated internationally and regionally.20 The efforts for the harmonisation of responses to statelessness are already ongoing both within the Council of Europe and the European Union. 2.2. Legal framework under the Council of Europe’s aegis The 47 countries comprising the Council of Europe (CoE) cover the majority of Europe, with only three exceptions: Belarus, the Holy See and Kosovo (UNSCR 1244/99).21 Being part of the CoE requires States to accede to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).22 The power of the ECHR lies in its enforceability; States Parties pledge to be under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the supervisory mechanism of the ECHR and its Protocols. Article 46(1) ECHR pronounces that the High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. Primarily, the CoE protects the basic human rights of stateless persons by virtue of the ECHR, as they belong to its ratione personae.23 This makes the ECHR a valuable tool for strategic litigation in front of the ECtHR. According to the case law of the ECtHR, there are five relevant articles of the ECHR that 14 Gábor Gyulai, Presentation on Statelessness for the Serbian Government delegation: General Framework and State Practice, held at UNHCR Regional Representation for Central Europe (4 November 2014). Updated according to correspondence with Gábor Gyulai on 30 October 2017. 15 European Network on Statelessness, ‘Statelessness determination and the protection status of stateless persons’ (2013), p. 7. Available at: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/53162a2f4.pdf [accessed 27 March 2017] 16 Gábor Gyulai, ‘Statelessness in the EU Framework for International Protection’, European Journal of Migration and Law 14 (2012), p. 287. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Katja Swider, ‘Protection and Identification of Stateless Persons through EU Law’ (2014), Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance Working Paper Series, 2014/5, p. 10. 20 Ibid. 21 All references to Kosovo should be understood in full compliance with Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo. 22 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Rome, 4 November 1950. 23 Article 1 of the ECHR states that “the High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention”. 7