Decisions are given in writing with reasons in most countries with a procedure to determine statelessness, although in Moldova, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom only for negative decisions. As to the remaining barriers, long delays are reported in many countries, which often exceed established time limits. In Bulgaria, cases of ‘silent rejection’ have been reported whereby the six-month time limit expires without a decision being communicated. Italy has a very long 895-day time limit in the administrative procedure, and cases are known to last much longer than this, with the longest reported to have lasted 13 years. In France, there is no time limit for decisions resulting in long delays up to two or three years. There are also issues with the reasoning provided with the decisions. In France, in practice the reason given is often vague, such as ‘journey not established’ and/or ‘vague statements from the applicant’. In Ukraine and Türkiye, it has been reported in practice that decisions are not always given in writing with reasons. Quality assurance States should regularly undertake quality assurance audits of the procedure, and guarantee access to UNHCR as a safeguard. In most Index countries, UNHCR has a role in the procedure or access to case files, although the level of involvement varies. In some countries it also provides training, guidance, and other technical support to the authorities. In Latvia, the competent authority consults UNHCR on individual cases from time to time and asks queries about nationality laws and practices in different countries. An internal quality assurance system in the United Kingdom requires at least one decision per examiner to be reviewed each month, and UNHCR undertook a detailed audit of the SDP in 2020. In Georgia, quality assurance work by UNHCR and the competent authority in 2021 resulted in the adoption of specific action points under the 2023 Statelessness Action Plan. Despite these safeguards in some countries, overall, there is a lack of quality assurance mechanisms in statelessness procedures, and the role of UNHCR is often limited. In Switzerland, there is no quality assurance mechanism and UNHCR does not participate or have access to applicants’ files. In France, quality assurance audits of first-instance decisions are jointly carried out by UNHCR and the competent authority in asylum procedures but not in the SDP. Good Practice: Procedural safeguards in UKRAINE In Ukraine, applicants have access to free legal aid at any stage of the process, and undocumented people can also access legal aid in proceedings related to the issuance of an identification document. Applicants have the right to an interview and, in practice, these are conducted in every case. The law provides that an interpreter and free translation at the application stage are mandatory (although in practice there are issues with access to these). Decisions must be given in writing within six months (or a maximum of 12 months), and are usually decided within this period. There is a mechanism to refer to the asylum procedure or determination of Ukrainian nationality. Referral mechanisms between the refugee status determination procedure and the SDP It is recommended that cross-referral systems should exist in cases where the refugee status and statelessness determination procedures are not conducted in a joint framework, respecting the primacy of the asylum claim (see Section 4.1).52 In Moldova, cross-referral mechanisms are in place between the SDP and asylum procedures. The SDP is suspended if an asylum application is made and resumed if refugee (or subsidiary protection) status is refused. In Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, the competent authority can refer people refused asylum to the SDP, but this rarely happens in practice.