There is disagreement over the impact of litigation on denial of nationality in the Dominican Republic.63 The Yean and Bosico case and the subsequent decision on the arbitrary expulsion of Dominicans and Haitians64 clearly created a backlash. The ultimate identification of different groups of afectados arguably reduced solidarity among those of Haitian descent. However, many of those involved consider that the overall impact was positive, in the context of a very difficult national environment of racism towards Haitian immigrants and people of Haitian descent. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights decisions gave the issue a visibility and undeniability that was new. The collaboration between national organisations and international partners took time to establish the best framing, but ultimately was successful in presenting the denationalisation of people of Haitian descent as a question of recognised rights and due process of law, providing the basis for wider social support among other Dominicans. The Dominican government was repeatedly challenged on the situation in international fora; and the fact that the decision was from the Inter-American Court made its findings more difficult to discredit than if it had come from the UN. The detailed arguments of judgment are also cited across many other jurisdictions, becoming the foundation for much litigation on the right to a nationality. For the denationalised Dominicans of Haitian descent, the judgment validated their claims and strengthened transnational networks of solidarity. Reforms to national laws and procedure clearly responded to this pressure. 4.3. What makes an effective advocacy ecosystem? Litigation is a useful tool, but it rarely achieves results beyond the individual case unless it is set within an ecosystem of other activities. Litigation should be guided by research into the priorities of the affected communities, a mapping of where the law needs to go, an assessment of what logical steps are needed to get there, and the contribution litigation may make.65 Most importantly, litigators must build alliances with others working in the space. The story of a case conceived of as strategic, and the reasons why it is important, must reach a much wider audience than only a judge and the lawyers who advise the government on its strategy. Each stage of case preparation must therefore consider not only the legal arguments but the narrative surrounding the facts and law, and the different constituencies who might need to be persuaded of the need to resolve the situation of those arbitrarily denied or deprived of nationality or issue of identity documents (u section 5.1: Issue framing). In some cases, of course, publicity around a case will not be desired; but alliances will be required also in these contexts, to decide on the strategy and the narrative if the case attracts media or political interest. The other actors with whom litigators should work include: • the individuals and communities who are their clients, including the community organisations that are led by and work with the affected people; • established human rights organisations and policy think tanks; • members of parliament and parliamentary committees, as well as political parties; • national human rights commissions and similar bodies; • government agencies that interact with those affected by statelessness and lack of nationality documents; and • relevant UN and other international agencies—especially UNHCR. A communications and media strategy will be needed, to build relationships with journalists and craft easily understood summaries of the issues for a broader public at different stages of the case. On the other hand, there may sometimes be a preference to avoid publicity, especially to protect complainants from the adverse impacts of media attention. Can different roles and messages be agreed on and coordinated? Maintaining coordination requires investment of human and financial resources: who can support this effort? (u section 4.4: Resources.) 63 Bingham & Gamboa, “Litigating against Statelessness”, supra n 15; Amelia Hintzen, “Historical Forgetting and the Dominican Constitutional Tribunal”, Journal of Haitian Studies, Vol. 20, no. 1 (2014), pp. 108-116; Leiv Marsteintredet, “Mobilisation against International Human Rights: Re-Domesticating the Dominican Citizenship Regime”, Iberoamericana: Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, Vol. XLIV, no. 1-2 (2014), pp 73-98; Jennifer L. Shoaff, “The Right to a Haitian Name and a Dominican Nationality: ‘La Sentencia’ (TC 168–13) and the Politics of Recognition and Belonging”, Journal of Haitian Studies, Vol. 22, no. 2 (2016), pp. 58-82; Patricia Palacios Zuloaga, “Judging Inter-American Human Rights: The Riddle of Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 42 no. 2 (2020), pp. 392-433; Bridget Wooding, “Supra-National Jurisprudence: Necessary but Insufficient to Contest Statelessness in the Dominican Republic” in Tendayi Bloom and Lindsey N Kingston (eds), Statelessness, Governance, and the Problem of Citizenship (Manchester University Press 2021). Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, Series C No. 282, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 28 August 2014, https://corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_282_ing.pdf. 64 65 See also Challenging Ethnic Profiling in Europe, Open Society Justice Initiative, 2021. U N H C R | L I T I G AT I N G T H E R I G H T T O A N AT I O N A L I T Y: A G U I D E F O R P R AC T I T I O N E R S 27