The Priority groups below show what kind of response is needed. Where one country-level rule can solve the same barrier across several document types, it is treated as one common reform; otherwise the solution stays specific to the document or procedure.
Starting with urgent specific documents, the proposed below are document-by-document solutions, new gereralised country-specific mechanisms to address the conflict of Belarusian and Spanish laws, to operationalising existing solutions, where applicable, and enabling existing legal pathways of aquiring and authenticating documents.
For each proposed measure, IBDED identifies the competent authority, requested act, legal vehicle, supporting evidence, safeguards and measurable outcome. Proposed reforms are kept separate from current law and are not presented as adopted policy or an individual entitlement.
Risk evidence is assessed within the particular procedure and its legal conditions, not as a universal documentary exemption.
Existing-document implementation schedule. The six positions in group 3 and 25 positions in group 4 are mapped to explicit institutional requests in the memoranda. MEMORANDUM I — Passport Expiry, Travel and Return: Existing Mechanisms and Proposed Solutions, section 6.8, covers two domestic-identification actions; MEMORANDUM II — Access to Belarusian Public Documents: Existing Routes and Proposed Solutions, section 10.5, covers eleven access and existing-pathway actions; MEMORANDUM III — Authentication, Apostille and Evidentiary Substitution: Existing Rules and Proposed Solutions, sections 11.7–11.8, covers eighteen document-use and sector actions. The supplementary schedule gives each of the 31 positions one primary location, recipient, request, written result and remaining limitation. Cross-references do not create additional actions or 31 new reforms.
<aside>
Where obtaining a required document involves contact with Belarus, the Spanish authority should assess: the specific act required, who would be exposed to risk, the relevant legal rule, the general country situation, the person’s individual risk indicators, the link between the required contact and the expected harm, how current and reliable the evidence is, whether safer alternatives exist, and what legal consequence the procedure allows.
General country risk, family relationship or a simple statement of fear is not enough on its own, but the absence of previous reprisals does not prove that there is no risk. Ley 39/2015 art. 77 allows relevant facts to be proved through lawful evidence, but it does not create a general exemption from documentary requirements; any exception must come from the specific procedure, as illustrated by RD 1155/2024 art. 210.5.
</aside>
<aside>
IBDED_Memo_I_institutional_action_plan.pdf
IBDED_Memo_II_institutional_action_plan_revised.pdf
Priority 1: criminal record, travel/return and civil status.
Mechanism: a complete solution for each problem, including the authority and the exact request.
<aside>
Problem: a required Belarusian criminal-record certificate may be impossible to obtain, blocking the application.
Solution: use any lawful substitute already available, such as a qualifying Consular Conduct Certificate or a previously filed valid certificate. If none applies, create two Spanish documents: (1) an official record that the Belarusian certificate cannot be obtained, and (2) a Spanish criminal-record verification report based on Spanish/EU checks and an official request to Belarus.
Authority: Dirección General de Gestión Migratoria (DGG Migratoria); Secretaría de Estado de Migraciones / Subdirección General de Régimen Jurídico; Dirección General de Seguridad Jurídica y Fe Pública (DGSJFP).
Problem: an expired Belarusian passport may work for residence paperwork but not for travel, and can also block access to a cédula.
Solution: create three outputs: (1) an official Spanish decision confirming that the person cannot obtain or renew a Belarusian travel document; (2) a reusable Spanish travel document for lawful residents; and (3) a Spanish consular replacement/return document if it is lost or becomes unusable abroad.
Authority: Dirección General de Gestión Migratoria (DGG Migratoria); Comisaría General de Extranjería y Fronteras (CGEF); Secretaría de Estado de Migraciones / Subdirección General de Régimen Jurídico; Dirección General de la Policía; Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, Unión Europea y Cooperación (MAEUEC).
Problem: required Belarusian proof of marriage, divorce or civil status may be impossible to obtain, blocking the procedure.
Solution: create two outputs: (1) an official Spanish record confirming that the Belarusian document cannot be obtained; and (2) a procedure-specific Spanish determination of the required fact — for example, a Civil Registry declaration, court recognition of a divorce, an immigration evidence route, or a regional pareja de hecho decision.
Authority: Registro Civil; Dirección General de Seguridad Jurídica y Fe Pública (DGSJFP); Juzgados de Primera Instancia; Oficinas de Extranjería; Dirección General de Gestión Migratoria (DGG Migratoria); competent Autonomous Community pareja de hecho authorities.
</aside>
</aside>
<aside>
IBDED_Memo_II_institutional_action_plan_revised.pdf
IBDED_Memo_III_institutional_action_plan.pdf
Priority 2: a demonstrated obstacle remains after adequate existing alternatives have been assessed.
How we choose the response: identify the exact obstacle, existing alternatives and the practical result needed. A common mechanism is considered only where its legal basis can cover several independent procedures; a shared Belarusian source restriction is not enough. The competent institutions determine any necessary instrument and sector adaptations. A failed route does not automatically require a law change or activate a favourable decision.
<aside>
1: Belarus documents when apostille is unavailable
Problem: a Belarus-origin public document exists, the exact Spanish receiving regime requires formal authentication, the ordinary Belarus apostille route is objectively unavailable, and no existing Spanish exception already resolves the case.
Proposed common solution: record the objective authentication obstacle, use an authorised and sufficiently reliable alternative check, and issue a reasoned authenticity finding for the defined Belarusian public documents. Existing exceptions come first. A State law or special statutory provision is an analysed implementation option, not an automatic first request. The mechanism concerns authentication only, not contents, currency, judgment recognition, qualification equivalence or another substantive effect.
Applies to: State receiving regimes lawfully covered by the common legislative instrument. The verified framework applications are university recognition and judicial use of foreign public documents. Additional sectors require their own exact-rule and competence check. Belarusian consular documents issued in Spain, missing source documents/content and recognition/exequatur remain separate.
Authority and implementation: competent justice and university authorities, with MAEUEC for authentication and verification channels. They should identify what existing powers permit and the precise remaining legal obstacle. Government and, where a statutory instrument is necessary and pursued, Cortes Generales retain their respective powers. The proposal is not an adopted general exemption.
2: University documents when apostille is unavailable
Problem: university-recognition rules require apostille/legalisation for key academic documents, so the general Belarus rule may not be enough for this sector.
Solution: provide a controlled alternative-authenticity procedure where the ordinary apostille requirement cannot be met and no sufficient existing route resolves it. The competent institutions determine whether the common mechanism or a university-specific instrument is necessary. These are alternative implementations, not two cumulative requirements. The result addresses authentication, not missing academic content.
Authority: the university ministry and Secretaría General de Universidades, with MAEUEC and the competent technical bodies; Government where the necessary instrument requires its action. NARIC provides information and recognition support within its remit, not an independent power to waive requirements or grant recognition.
3: Missing university transcript
Problem: the university needs detailed information about the programme, but no surviving official record can reconstruct it.
Solution: create a regulated alternative assessment procedure that can evaluate the qualification from other verified academic evidence when the official transcript can no longer be reconstructed. Recognition is not automatic.
Authority: Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades / Secretaría General de Universidades / NARIC and the competent State regulatory authority.
</aside>
</aside>
<aside>
IBDED_institutional_implementation_schedule.pdf
Priority 3: the document already exists; the question is how Spain can use it.
This includes: apostille/legalisation, translation, legal effect, deadlines/corrections, reuse of documents already filed in Spain and whether an older document is still current enough.
<aside>
Existing document: a Belarusian public document already exists.
Usability step: identify the correct apostille or consular-legalisation route and use any adequate existing exception first. If a mandatory requirement remains unresolved, record the exact obstacle and request the competent institution's decision on the corresponding lawful mechanism. The proposed common or sector-specific authentication procedure applies only once lawfully introduced and within its scope. Failure alone does not activate it. A sworn translation does not replace authentication.
Authority: Belarus — Ministry of Justice / competent justice administration; Department for Quality Control of Education; Department for Archives and Records Management; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, according to document category. Spain — DGSJFP / Registro Civil; Secretaría General de Universidades / NARIC; ICOMEM / COAM for the current verified professional branches; MAEUEC for covered foreign-consular documents.
2: Translation
Existing document: the source document and its authentication status are already identified.
Usability step: apply the translation form required by the receiving procedure and translate the relevant document, annotations and authentication text; a translation defect should not trigger a new Belarusian source document.
Authority: DGSJFP / Registro Civil; Secretaría General de Universidades / NARIC; DGGM / Oficinas de Extranjería; ICOMEM / COAM for the current verified professional branches; MAEUEC-authorised sworn translators where a traducción jurada is required.
3: Recognition and legal effect
Existing document: the foreign document is formally usable, but its Spanish legal effect is still unresolved.
Usability step: determine the separate recognition, registration, homologación or professional-acceptance route instead of requesting another foreign certificate.
Authority: DGSJFP / Registro Civil; Juzgados de Primera Instancia; Secretaría General de Universidades / NARIC; ICOMEM / COAM for the current verified professional branches.
Existing document: the document exists, is being obtained or is being corrected, but a Spanish procedural deadline or freshness rule affects its use.
Usability step: map the filing, freshness, subsanación and extension/suspension clocks and use the exact procedure's existing extension or correction mechanism.
Authority: Secretaría General de Universidades / NARIC; DGGM / Oficinas de Extranjería; DGSJFP / Registro Civil; DGT; Dirección General de Protección Internacional / OAR for the protection procedures mapped in this project.
5: Reuse documents already filed in Spain
Existing document: the same foreign document was already filed with a Spanish administration.
Usability step: check whether Spain can retrieve and reuse that document before asking the person to obtain a new Belarusian copy. If it is retrieved, check whether it still proves the fact required today.
Authority: Secretaría de Estado de Función Pública / Dirección General de Gobernanza Pública for common procedural guidance; the authority responsible for the current procedure for the actual retrieval and use decision.
6: When an old document is still usable
Existing document: the person has an older Belarusian document.
Usability step: decide whether the document proves a durable historic fact or a fact that must be current. Apply only the freshness rule of the actual procedure; a new apostille or translation does not make an old fact current.
Authority: DGSJFP / Registro Civil; Secretaría General de Universidades / NARIC; DGGM / Oficinas de Extranjería; the competent professional college or other procedure-owning authority where its own freshness rule applies.
</aside>
</aside>
<aside>
IBDED_institutional_implementation_schedule.pdf
Priority 4: a legal route exists but may need a clearer checklist, criterion, evidence procedure or implementation arrangement.
Use it first. If it fails, identify whether the problem is implementation, a correctable defect, missing evidence, source access or a residual legal barrier. Apply the relevant existing alternative or remedy; consider a further mechanism only for a demonstrated obstacle it can lawfully address. There is no automatic generalised approval and no presumption that the missing fact is proved.
<aside>
</aside>
</aside>