136 Gábor Gyulai the judiciary in statelessness-related work (training, research, etc.) seems a crucial objective, as the number of protection mechanisms is likely to multiply in forthcoming years. The fift h procedural safeguard of relevance to statelessness determination is setting the proper time frame for decision making and establishing deadlines. However, this is not straightforward either. Statelessness determination often requires several months in order to be completed (as in most cases it requires obtaining information from foreign authorities). Unreasonably short procedural deadlines can therefore result in serious difficulties and a failure to meet the aim of effective determination. At the same time, irrationally long deadlines can also render the procedure void, by – among other issues – reducing the authority’s motivation to conduct the determination process with due diligence. A striking example is the largely unused Italian administrative procedure, for which the law sets a 350-day deadline, or 895 days if the intervention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is required (which seems to be a regular necessity). On the other hand, administrative procedures are usually (even if not always) closed within a couple of months in France and Hungary. UNHCR suggests six months as a realistic time frame for statelessness determination, enabling an extension to twelve months, if official responses are required from foreign states regarding the applicant’s nationality.74 A sixth issue that has arisen in some countries is the unfortunate codification mistake that states should avoid. This mistake is the use of non-binding language in respect of the granting of status. Both the Italian rules on administrative statelessness determination and the Slovak regulation stipulate that the competent authority can grant protection to a stateless individual (instead of shall).75 This language creates legal uncertainty by delegating unreasonable discretion to the officer in charge, and as such, it raises serious concerns regarding compliance with the 1954 Convention. Finally, failure to regulate the relationship between statelessness determination and asylum procedures may also cause difficulties. Stateless persons can be refugees at the same time, and many may seek protection through the asylum procedure as well. Given that the most 74 75 See also UNHCR, ‘Guidelines on Statelessness No. 2: Procedures for Determining whether an Individual is a Stateless Person’, para. 23. Presidential Decree no. 572 of 12 October 1993, executive regulation of Act no. 91 of 5 February 1992 on new citizenship rules, s. 17(1); Act 404/2011 Coll. on aliens and the amendment of some laws (Z á kon č. 404/2011 Z.z. o pobyte cudzincov a o zmene a doplnení niektor ých zá konov), s. 46(2)(b). 9781107032446c05_p116-143.indd 136 6/16/2014 3:12:03 PM