Advocacy encompassing strategic litigation also needs a long project cycle. It may take a decade or more for a case to reach a superior court at national level, and then a regional or international body. For the effort to shepherd a case through all these stages to be worth it, there is a need to plan for interim objectives.66 These could include strengthened organisational capacity (especially for grassroots groups); a broader base of support among politicians or the public generally; strengthened alliances among lawyers and organisations previously working separately; submissions to and statements by different international treaty bodies or special rapporteurs; and increased data and analysis of the barriers to acquisition of identity documents and nationality. Funders will need to be persuaded of the value of both the ultimate objective and these interim milestones. Advocacy does not end with a favourable judgment. There is a need for detailed follow-up to ensure that judgments (especially of regional or international bodies, which may not be directly binding) are implemented. It is also important to plan for a case to fail in court. In some instances, litigation may even be brought in the knowledge that it is not likely to succeed—but can still be a tool to start to raise awareness of the problem and the people affected (u section 6: After a judgment). 4.4. Resources Fundraising for litigation to address statelessness is challenging. In general, fundraising for litigation is difficult, and those considered stateless may be ineligible for legal assistance provided by national authorities. Cases on statelessness are typically complex, and the time required is unlikely to be compensated in full by legal aid, where it is available. Independent funders with an interest in statelessness, moreover, may prefer to finance humanitarian rather than legal support. Fundraising opportunities are also quite context-specific and likely to be time-bound. One useful resource for community-based organisations is a guide for paralegals on strategies for documenting citizenship and other forms of legal identity, published by the Open Society Justice Initiative and Namati, which includes a chapter on fundraising and budgeting.67 For litigation, it may also be possible to seek pro bono support from law firms that have an interest in the area; but care must be taken that they have the necessary expertise for the work required. There are also other non-financial resources, including peer support groups, mailing lists, and trainings. The Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion and the regional civil society networks on statelessness and nationality are good starting points to find out what current resources may exist. UNHCR may also be able to support identification of potential funding sources. 4.5. Choosing a Forum Perhaps the most important determinant of the framing of a case, the choice of parties, the legal arguments, and the remedies sought is, of course, the jurisdiction in which a case is litigated, and the substantive law that is available to be invoked in that jurisdiction. The desired framing and remedies may also influence the choice of jurisdiction, especially at the international level. Most strategic litigation starts at the national level, since it is national courts that have the power to issue orders that are directly enforceable against the government or other actors. Even if the ambition is to reach an international forum, it is usually a requirement that domestic remedies must first be exhausted. In some contexts, however, it is possible to argue that an international forum should hear a case even if technically pending at national level, if the delays have been such that the domestic route is practically exhausted even if not in law.68 National courts: Already at the national level there may be different options of forum to hear a complaint about access to nationality and identity documents, in light of the different court structures and rules of procedure. The civil law jurisdictions may offer a choice between administrative and judicial courts. In common law countries, the formal process of judicial review before the High Court often sets a high bar for success in overturning an executive decision; but there may be specific tribunals handling particular matters (for example, in immigration cases) that could provide 66 Barbara Klugman, “Is the Policy Win All? A Framework for Effective Social-Justice Advocacy”, Foundation Review Vol. 2, no. 3 (2010) pp. 94-107, http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/tfr/vol2/iss3/. A Community-Based Practitioner’s Guide: Documenting Citizenship and Other Forms of Legal Identity, Open Society Foundations and Namati, 2018, chap.3, https:// www.justiceinitiative.org/uploads/286c1989-73db-4a17-b5a8-79706ccce5e4/a-community-based-practitioners-guide-documenting-citizenship-and-otherforms-of-legal-identity-20180627.pdf. 67 68 A few international fora allow direct access, even without exhausting domestic remedies—this is the case, for example, for the courts of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and of the East African Community (EAC), as well as the European Committee on Social Rights (for those states that have acceded to the additional protocol allowing collective complaints). 28 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