often, in fact, have the same strong links to the country of habitual residence as those persons who do possess the nationality. Overall then, the approach to a particular situation of statelessness must be carefully tailored according to the specific circumstances and needs identified. Regardless, it should be kept in mind that the ultimate goal is to ensure the enjoyment of the right to a nationality by all and thus the reduction of statelessness. Core concerns for stateless persons Participants discussed a variety of concrete rights or access to rights that are of particular concern for stateless persons throughout the region. Issues participants felt had not received due attention to date, included the right to enjoyment of family life, which may be jeopardised by the difficulties stateless persons experience in registering births and marriages as well as by physical separation due to detention, deportation or denial of the right to return to one’s place of habitual residence for a stateless family member. Another recurring theme was the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, in particular access to employment, education and healthcare. Here, difficulties may be encountered at various levels, depending on the country as well as on the status and documentation of the individual concerned. For instance, stateless children may be able to access primary schooling, but be barred from taking official examinations and therefore be effectively barred from education beyond a certain level. It was noted that, in some instances, problems had been addressed to a certain extent through charity initiatives developed to fill a gap in government-provided services which targeted stateless persons as a vulnerable group. While these efforts are to be commended, participants also recognised that such initiatives did result in a formal or structural improvement in the status of stateless persons. It was noted, however, that these measures do not exonerate states from their international human rights obligations. Within the context of access to and enjoyment of human rights, access to justice was considered in some detail. It was underlined that while it remains the states’ prerogative to decide the conditions upon which its provides citizenship it is obliged on the other hand to provide a remedy mechanism in those instances where a person is denied such a right, in particular in those instances where an individual is otherwise rendered stateless. Participants mentioned that stateless persons should be able to make use of the same remedies as citizens when denied rights available to other members of the population. However, remedies may be limited and there are reports of access to justice being denied to stateless persons, in particular where such individuals lack any personal documentation. Concern was expressed that the piecemeal solution of individual complaints has so far failed to contribute to systemic reform. An area in which difficulties in accessing a remedy may be most acute is in the context of detention and deportation. Stateless persons have encountered problems both within the region and upon migration to other parts of the world, whereby detention may be arbitrary, repeated and/or long-term. As a possible example of good practice, attention was drawn to encouraging jurisprudence from within the African human rights system which recognised a person’s right to challenge his or her deportation in a court as well as 19