5.4. Expert opinions Expert opinions may often be an important resource, to explain the laws in other jurisdictions and help to unravel the extremely complex relationships of private international law, as well as providing evidence on how the law is implemented in practice in another country. This will especially be the case if it is alleged that a person denied nationality has the nationality of another country and does not therefore require protection or grant of nationality as a stateless person. Examples of cases where information from another country has been critical include:  In a complaint brought to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on denial of recognition of Ivorian nationals, the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) submitted an expert opinion on the situation in the country by a leading Ivorian human rights activist, showing the impact of discriminatory application of nationality law on particular population groups. In advance of a hearing on remedies in the same case, OSJI submitted an expert opinion on Ivorian nationality law in comparative context, and on the specific legal and procedural reforms required to address the situation of those affected by provisions of the existing law that were not in compliance with African and international standards.121  An immigration case in UK concerned a person born in Mauritania, of parents he believed were also born in the same town, but who had grown up in Senegal, working in servitude. He held no identity documents of any kind. He arrived in the UK by irregular means, and was convicted of possessing a false document. An asylum claim was refused and the Home Office sought to deport him. However, based on expert evidence of the nationality law of Mauritania and Senegal an immigration tribunal accepted that he was stateless, even though he appeared to be Mauritanian through his parents. An appeal by the Home Office was unsuccessful.122 Even if there is no formal expert evidence submitted, it is worth reaching out to litigators in other countries through the various networks that exist. In many countries, there is no developed body of case law around access to nationality— by comparison to other rights issues. However, whatever specific form discrimination in issue of identification documents takes, it often raises a similar set of issues, and it can be rewarding to see how others have argued similar cases—especially, but not only, if the system of law is similar. It is also important to seek comparative advice when the government itself proposes a remedy for the situation of those affected by lack of identity documents: Is the remedy proposed in fact a solution, compliant with international law, or does it still discriminate against the affected group in some way? Seeking the views of those in other countries can help to avoid such traps. Increasingly, expertise may also be needed on digital identification, the risks that the implementation and architecture of new identification management systems replicate patterns of exclusion in existing identification systems, and the means to avoid this outcome. If there is already a focus in public advocacy on questions of data protection and privacy around digital identity, advocates and litigators focused on nationality can equally bring their expertise to inform the broader debate—bringing a focus not only on the rights of recognised citizens, but also those at the margins who are most likely to face problems with a new system. The creation of new identification systems is a notorious danger point for the creation of stateless populations. 5.5. Third-party interventions The complexity of cases turning on the question of nationality, and the different types of legal expertise required, means that it will often be helpful to seek out third party interventions to bring new insights and expertise to the case, especially on international or comparative law. Third party interventions bring additional weight and advocacy support going beyond the specific legal arguments put forward. OSJI Expert Opinion in People v. Côte d’Ivoire, African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, https://www.justiceinitiative.org/litigation/people-v-cte-divoire. 121 Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v. C B S (Respondent) Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/03859/2019, decision of 10 January 2020, https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/pa-03859-2019. 122 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 45