Statelessness Determination Procedures A Legality and Binding Nature of SDP While the 1954 Convention, 35 and other relevant conventions, 36 do not prescribe a particular procedure for SDP, as a good practice standard it is recommended by the UNHCR that states ensure that a determination procedure is formalised in law, as this will ensure fairness, transparency and efficiency of the process. 37 A state is free to design its own SDP as long as it adheres to the provisions of the 1954 Convention. Apart from the requirement of having an SDP enshrined in law, one of the very essential requirements of a good SDP, is that the decisions of the determination body be recognised and be considered as binding on other institutions in the state. An SDP should not just be an institutional policy of the agency saddled with a statelessness determination mandate; rather every institution within the state must be bound by the decision of the statelessness determination agency. For instance, institutions that render services within the state should allow recognised stateless persons access to basic services. Stateless persons should be able to access healthcare and other essential services, and the education board should allow recognised stateless persons access to education. Similarly, the immigration authority, the police and other relevant agencies of government must recognise that stateless persons or persons undergoing a determination procedure should not be subject to deportation. In the same vein, if the agency responsible for the granting of a residence permit and naturalisation is separate from the agency that grants statelessness status, the former should be bound by the decision of the latter and grant the required permit, which should in the long run result in naturalisation. B Structure and Location of SDP Where to situate SDP institutionally is a matter of state discretion and can vary from one country to the next. 38 Current state practice is varied with respect to the location of statelessness determination procedures within the national administrative structures, reflecting country-specific considerations. 39 States may choose between a centralised procedure or one that is conducted by local authorities. Centralised procedures are preferable as they are more likely to develop the necessary expertise among the officials undertaking status 35 36 37 38 39 1954 Convention (n 13). See especially Protocol Relating to a Certain Case of Statelessness, signed 12 April 1930, 179 LNTS 115 (entered into force 1 July 1937); UDHR (n 15); Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150 (entered into force 22 April 1954) (‘1951 Refugee Convention’); 1961 Convention (n 34); 1954 Convention (n 13); Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, opened for signature 30 August 1961, 989 UNTS 175 (entered into force 13 December 1975); Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, opened for signature 20 February 1957, 309 UNTS 65 (entered into force 11 August 1958); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, opened for signature 18 December 1979, 1249 UNTS 13 (entered into force 3 September 1981); CRC (n 17); International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, opened for signature 18 December 1990, 2220 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 July 2003). See Statelessness Determination Procedures (n 19) 5. Good Practices Paper — Action 6: Establishing Statelessness Determination Procedures to Protect Stateless Persons (Good Practices Paper, UNHCR 11 July 2016) 4 (‘Good Practices Paper — Action 6’). Location in this context means the presence of an SDP either in a central authority or various government agencies across the country. 92