There was some opposition to the inclusion of this provision in the Convention, particularly to the exemption from cautio judicatum solvi and to the third paragraph. The representative of Guatemala feared that the exemption would put stateless persons in a more favourable 136 position than certain nationals. The Yugoslav representative opposed the inclusion of the third paragraph on the ground that it would establish discrimination in the case of a country which recognized the most-favoured-nations clause: in that case, stateless persons residing in a country which did not recognize such a clause would be treated 137 worse than those in countries which recognize the clause. The British representative admitted that discrimination of this nature would be possible but he contended that the value of the clause has been proven in international practice and saw no reason why stateless persons should not be accorded the advantage which has been accorded refugees. The three paragraphs were voted and adopted separately. The whole article was adopted 138 by 21 votes to none, with 2 abstentions. 2. Under present-day practice foreigners are usually granted the right to appear before courts of law as plaintiffs or defendants. Thus, stateless persons would generally have access to courts on the basis of Article 7 (1) of the Convention. To avoid difficulties in such countries where free access to courts is not granted all foreigners, the Convention explicitly imposes such an obligation on the Contracting States. The Ad Hoc Committee considered that para. 1 also applied to such persons who had no 139 habitual residence anywhere. In this respect, para. 1 may represent a special case in favour of stateless persons, i.e., it may grant stateless persons in this respect more rights than they would enjoy under Article 7 (1). 3. The scope of the rights accorded to stateless persons under para. 2 is the same as in Article 14. See the Comments to that article also for the definition of “habitual residence”. 4. The difficulties which foreigners usually encounter are mainly due to the requirement of a deposit to cover the court expenses of the other party in the event that the foreigner loses the case (cautio judicatum solvi), and the absence of free legal assistance to indigent foreign claimants. In order to alleviate the difficulties which stateless persons may meet with, para. 2 explicitly assimilates stateless persons, habitual residents of the country where the court is located, to nationals insofar as access to court in general and the requirement of cautio judicatum solvi and free legal assistance in particular are concerned. The reference to cautio judicatum solvi has a psychological effect only, because nationals of the country where the court is located are not required to pay the cautio; therefore once a stateless person is assimilated to a national he could not be required to pay cautio judicatum solvi. In Contracting Countries other than those of their habitual residence stateless persons are 140 assimilated to nationals of the country of their habitual residence, under paragraph 3. 136 This opposition was, in part at least, based on the contention that since not all stateless persons were indigent, it would be well to make a distinction based on their means. 137 The President pointed out that the Yugoslav proposal, if adopted, might deprive stateless persons of the possibility of benefitting from the exemption of cautio judicatum solvi if there was no assurance that a Court decision handed down in another Contracting State would have effect in the state of residence and that there could only be assurance when there was an agreement to that effect between the two states. (The records must be incorrect in this respect and the President must have had in mind the reverse situation, namely, when a court decision in the country of residence were not recognized in another state.) 138 SR.7, pp. 6-8. 139 SR.25, para. 19. 140 This is the same principle as set forth in Article 14. See the Comments to that article for whatever complication may arise in its implementation.