Last updated: 30-Sep-2026. Salamanca, Spain
Update: Added institutional requests for existing document pathways, including a separate post-protection-refusal transition, with a supplementary schedule. The agreed documentary solutions and safeguards are retained.
<aside>
IBDED proposes three practical ways to deal with missing Belarusian documents. For criminal records, Spain would record why the certificate cannot be obtained and report the checks it has carried out. For civil status, the responsible Spanish authority would record the obstacle and decide the specific question, such as whether a previous marriage has ended. For a missing university transcript, academic assessors would first seek official records and, where these cannot supply the necessary information, assess other verified evidence under the proposed procedure. Existing lawful alternatives come first. The details below explain who would act and what each solution would provide.
The linked commentaries set out the existing law, proposed implementation and safeguards. They are not adopted administrative forms or an exhaustive action catalogue. [35]
Additional implementation requests: section 10.5 addresses existing document pathways and a separate transition after a protection refusal. These requests make existing routes usable; they do not replace the three solutions below or create automatic approval when a route fails.
Three solutions and their practical results
1. Criminal record — problem: a required Belarusian criminal-record certificate cannot be obtained, leaving the Spanish application incomplete.
Solution: use any lawful substitute already available, such as a qualifying Consular Conduct Certificate in nationality proceedings or a previously filed certificate that remains sufficient. If none applies, the proposed subsidiary immigration mechanism creates two Spanish documents: (1) an official record that the required Belarusian certificate cannot be obtained; and (2) a Spanish criminal-record verification report based on lawfully available Spanish/EU checks and an official or diplomatic request to Belarus where lawful and useful.
Result: after the defined verification period, the authority makes a reasoned decision on the admissible evidence instead of automatically ending the application solely because Belarus has not replied. Neither document is a certificate of no criminal record. The substantive criminal-record condition is retained.
Who should act: Dirección General de Gestión Migratoria should clarify the options already available to immigration applicants. The migration authorities and Government should determine how to put the two-document procedure into operation. Section 10.2 examines the regulatory route for doing so; it does not propose changing the criminal-record requirement in LO 4/2000. Dirección General de Seguridad Jurídica y Fe Pública should address the separate nationality procedure. Developed in sections 4.2 and 10.2.
2. Civil status documents — problem: required Belarusian proof of marriage, divorce or civil status cannot be obtained.
Solution: provide (1) an official Spanish record explaining why the Belarusian document cannot be obtained; and (2) a decision on the fact that the Spanish procedure needs to establish. The responsible authority would use the route available for that purpose: a Civil Registry declaration where its conditions are met, recognition or registration of a divorce decision, assessment of a family relationship for residence, or a decision on pareja de hecho registration.
Result: the applicant receives a decision explaining what has been established and for what purpose. It is not a certificate that replaces every Belarusian civil-status document. If existing alternatives are insufficient, the authority responsible for that procedure must explain the remaining obstacle and determine what action is needed.
Authority: Civil Registry and marriage-file authorities, Dirección General de Seguridad Jurídica y Fe Pública, the competent courts, immigration authorities and the relevant Autonomous Community, each within its remit. Developed in sections 4.1.2 and 10.1.
3. Missing university transcript — problem: the qualification-assessment authority needs the programme's subjects, duration and workload, but no obtainable official record can reconstruct that information.
Solution: first seek sufficient official records from the university, its successor or an archive. Several records may be considered together. If they cannot establish the required subjects, duration and workload, use the proposed additional academic assessment procedure to examine other verified evidence. Its rules would define who can use it, how the assessment works and what decisions it can support.
Result: an assessment report identifies the studies established, remaining gaps and the outcome permitted by the qualification rules. It does not invent a transcript or grant automatic recognition.
Authority: the ministry responsible for universities, Secretaría General de Universidades and competent assessment bodies; the Government for the proposed changes to university-recognition rules. Developed in section 4.3.4.
Why separate solutions? A criminal-record report concerns convictions; a civil-status determination concerns a relationship or legal capacity; an academic assessment concerns completed studies. They cannot replace one another. Section 10.1 supplies the common method for documenting the obstacle, not a universal substitute for the missing fact.
Existing routes and proposed implementation. Existing exceptions and admissible evidence are used under their own rules. The new subsidiary mechanisms remain proposals, not already available universal procedures. If a certificate has been issued but required legalisation is blocked, establish the precise defect and a lawful authenticity route; obtaining another identical certificate does not necessarily help. Nationality and protection-specific regimes remain distinct.
Two related safeguards. Section 10.3 proposes that people qualifying under the special residence procedure in Additional Provision 20 (DA20) should be able to obtain residence and their identity card without giving up their international-protection case. Section 10.4 proposes keeping an existing provisional right to reside and work for a limited period when an application is refused solely because of the specified documentary obstacle. These safeguards support the three document solutions; they do not replace the evidence required. The deadline for new applications under DA20 and DA21 was 30 June 2026. The proposals concern the defined pending cases and appeals, not automatic reopening. [6]
IBDED_Memo_II_institutional_action_plan_revised.pdf
IBDED_Memo_II_implementation_supplement.pdf
</aside>
Contents
<aside> <img src="notion://custom_emoji/084fa322-631c-4d6a-8f5e-4c488ef080c2/3d59e408-1e26-81f1-806b-007a417d1da0" alt="notion://custom_emoji/084fa322-631c-4d6a-8f5e-4c488ef080c2/3d59e408-1e26-81f1-806b-007a417d1da0" width="40px" />
This memorandum asks two practical questions: can a person in Spain obtain the Belarusian document they need, and what should the Spanish authority do when they cannot? Getting the document, confirming its official origin, translating it and deciding whether it proves the required fact are different steps. A record explaining why a document cannot be obtained or legalised does not, by itself, replace it or prove what it would have said.
</aside>
Belarusian nationals may need documents issued by Belarusian public authorities or institutions to obtain Spanish authorisations, register civil-status matters, establish educational qualifications, execute powers of attorney or complete other administrative steps.
A document may exist in Belarus but still be inaccessible to the person who needs it in Spain. Following changes to Belarusian procedures for documenting nationals abroad, some acts previously available through diplomatic or consular missions have become unavailable there or require an application in Belarus itself. [19, 21, 25]
This creates a documentation gap: a Spanish procedure may require a particular foreign public document while the person in Spain is objectively unable to obtain it through the ordinary route.
This memorandum does not assume a general entitlement to replace Belarusian documents. For each document category, it identifies the issuer, whether access from Spain is possible, whether a consular route exists, whether personal presence in Belarus is required, whether representation is permitted, what evidence can establish unavailability and what follows in the Spanish procedure if the document cannot be obtained.
The central conclusion is that the problem must be addressed document by document and procedure by procedure. There is no universal rule under which any unavailable Belarusian document can be replaced by a copy, another certificate, electronic verification or a declaration by the person concerned.
Four questions must be answered in sequence: