of the parent in transmission of citizenship to children.27
Chile: A case filed on behalf of children whose parents were recorded in the civil registry as “transient foreigners”,
and who were therefore not recognised as Chilean nationals, led the Chilean Supreme Court to broker an amicable
settlement, by which the government established the “Chile Reconoce” project, in conjunction with UNHCR, to
resolve the situation of these children and recognise their Chilean nationality.28
Colombia: In January 2020, the Colombian Constitutional Court held that the National Civil Registry had “violated
the rights to nationality of the applicants and legal personality of the children of the [children of Venezuelan
refugees born in Colombia] by omitting to consider the risk of statelessness in which the children were at the
time of birth.”29 While the case was pending, both administrative and legislative measures addressed the status of
Venezuelan children born in Colombia.30 Although these measures were time-limited, it was estimated that more
than 24,000 children immediately benefited from the grant of Colombian nationality.31 In 2021, a new migration
policy was adopted that also provided for the recognition of stateless person status. (u focus box H)
Denmark: A refugee with documented psychosocial disability stemming from torture who was refused
naturalisation for failure to satisfy the language requirements was eventually naturalised, as a result of advocacy
including a case brought on his behalf before the European Court of Human Rights.32
Hungary: The Hungarian Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the requirement that only a person with
a regular migration status could initiate a statelessness determination procedure, unblocking the major barrier for
protection of stateless persons in Hungary. The applicant was granted stateless status and regained entitlement
to basic health care and employment, as well as identity documents enabling him to marry.33
Italy: Litigation before both national courts and the European Court of Human Rights assisted children born in
Italy to acquire citizenship, and facilitated the grant of stateless status to stateless migrants, creating a pathway
to acquire citizenship.34
Kenya: The African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the African Commission
on Human and Peoples’ Rights both adopted decisions condemning discrimination in Kenyan nationality
administration, especially against children and adults of Nubian descent.35 These cases formed part of a general
campaign to bring recognition of the situation of the Nubians, most of whom are now recognised as Kenyan
(though discriminatory practices remain). The decisions of the African regional human rights bodies have also
been used in litigation on the impact of a new national identity number on the Nubians and other groups facing
27
Attorney-General v. Dow, Court of Appeal, 3 July 1992, BLR 119 (CA) ; see also Lisa C. Stratton, “The Right to Have Rights: Gender Discrimination in Nationality
Laws”, Minnesota Law Review Vol.77, no. 1 (1992), pp. 195–240.
“Se presentaron los resultados de proyecto ‘Chile Reconoce’ Para dar nacionalidad chilena a hijos de extranjeros transeúntes”, Centro de Derechos Humanos
UDP Clínica Jurídica de Migrantes y Refugiados, 9 January 2018, https://www.udp.cl/se-presentaron-los-resultados-de-proyecto-chile-reconoce/.
28
“La entidad demandada vulneró los derechos de los accionantes a la nacionalidad y la personalidad jurídica de hijos de los accionantes al omitir considerar
el riesgo de apatridia en el que se encontraban los niños en el momento del nacimiento.” Sentencia T-006/20, Derecho a la nacionalidad de los niños y niñas
hijos de extranjeros que se encuentran en riesgo de apatridia en Colombia, Corte Constitucional, 17 January 2020, p. 50, https://www.justiceinitiative.org/
uploads/9b331832-404e-4d7d-8772-e98083aa9286/nationality-of-children-born-in-colombia-final-ruling-august-2020.pdf. UNHCR also intervened in a
similar case before the Constitutional Court: Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (ACNUR), Colombia: Observaciones de la Oficina del
Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados ante la Corte Constitucional de la República de Colombia en respuesta al Oficio OPTB – 1443/19,
Expedientes T-7.206.829 y T-7.245.483 AC, Julio 2019, https://www.refworld.org/es/jur/amicus/unhcr/2019/es/129655.
29
Registrador Nacional del Estado Civil, Resolución 8470 de 5 de agosto de 2019; Lei 1997 de 16 de setembro de 2019. See discussion in Miguel Ángel
Rodríguez Vázquez, Flor María Ávila Hernández & Isidro de los Santos, ‘Reflexiones sobre nacionalidad, apatridia y derechos de los niños: Análisis comparado
entre Colombia y República Dominicana’, Novum Jus, 14, no.2 (2020), 197–231.
30
31
“Colombia otorga nacionalidad a 24.000 niños y niñas nacidos de padres y madres venezolanos”, CEJIL, 5 August 2019, https://cejil.org/comunicado-deprensa/colombia-otorga-nacionalidad-a-24-000-ninos-y-ninas-nacidos-de-padres-y-madres-venezolanos/.
HP v. Denmark, Application no. 55607/09, European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), Decision of 19 January 2017, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
eng?i=001-170625; See case summary, https://www.justiceinitiative.org/litigation/hp-v-denmark.
32
Decision no.6/2015 of 25 February 2015, Constitutional Court of Hungary, see Gábor Gyulai, “Hungarian Constitutional Court Declares that Lawful Stay
Requirement in Statelessness Determination Breaches International Law” (blog post), European Network on Statelessness, 2 March 2015, https://www.
statelessness.eu/updates/blog/hungarian-constitutional-court-declares-lawful-stay-requirement-statelessness; the European Court of Human Rights found
violations of the right to private and family life on the same facts: Sudita Keita v. Hungary (application no. 42321/15), ECtHR judgment of 12 May 2020, https://
caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw/ecthr-sudita-keita-v-hungary.
33
34
See for example case summaries at the Open Society Justice Initiative website in the cases of Iseni (national courts), https://www.justiceinitiative.org/
litigation/iseni-v-italian-ministry-interior and Dabetić (ECtHR), https://www.justiceinitiative.org/litigation/dabeti-v-italy, as well as the ENS caselaw database
entries on Italy at https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw-search?caselaw%5B0%5D=state_party%3A512; and the judgment of the Court of Cassation,
Sentenza 4262/2015, Corte Cassazione, 3 March 2015, http://www.apolidia.org/index.php/giurisprudenza/44-corte-di-cassazione/100-cassazione-civilesentenza-n-4262-del-03-03-2015. Although the ECtHR deemed the Dabetić case inadmissible in November 2022 (European Court of Human Rights, Dabetić
v. Italy (dec.), no. 31149/12, 18 October 2022), the application to the ECtHR had also formed part of the context in which national procedures were improved.
Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa and Open Society Justice Initiative (on behalf of Children of Nubian Descent in Kenya) v. Kenya, Communication
no. 02/2009, African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, decision of 22 March 2011 (the Kenyan Nubian children’s case), https://
www.acerwc.africa/en/communications/institute-human-rights-and-development-africa-ihrda-and-open-society-justice, Nubian Community in Kenya v.
Kenya, Communication No. 317/06, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, decision of 28 February 2015, https://achpr.au.int/en/decisionscommunications/nubian-community-kenya-v-republic-kenya.
35
20
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