There are also important statements on the positive right to a nationality—even if statelessness is not proven—from the regional human rights treaty bodies, including in other cases against the Dominican Republic before the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, and against Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, and Sudan before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. These cases are analysed in greater detail in the sections that follow (especially u section 7: Legal arguments). 4. DEVELOPING A LITIGATION STRATEGY Strategic human rights litigation is a process not a single legal intervention.56 KEY MESSAGES • Assessment of the national context is essential, in order to consider if litigation is even the right tool, considering the political and legal environment. • Risk assessment and consideration of what could go wrong is an important part of planning litigation. • Litigation should be planned and conducted as part of a much wider advocacy ecosystem in which there is close cooperation among litigators, their individual clients, and the wider community of affected persons. • A litigation strategy will have to consider the resources needed not only to launch a complaint but also to see it all the way through to a conclusion—potentially through several layers of appeal. • There may be a choice of forum—of court or other jurisdiction—to which a case may be brought. The most obvious one may not always be the best. • There may also be a choice of complainants and of defendants to be named as the parties to the case; this choice also has strategic implications. • A key part of planning litigation is to prioritise the legal remedies desired, and to think through the evidence that must be presented to justify a request for the particular solutions. Litigation before national, regional, and international courts and treaty bodies57 is an important tool to defend and expand the right to a nationality. This includes both litigation that is planned as “strategic” and ordinary cases that seek only an immediate remedy—but may go on to provoke a change in law and policy. Litigation will, however, never be sufficient to secure all the changes that those litigating want to see in society, and there are potential downsides. For the desired impacts to be realised, litigators must work closely with non-litigators, particularly with representatives of the community on whose behalf they are working, and embrace non-legal strategies that operate in parallel with the litigation. A multistakeholder strategy is needed, that plans for the long term, and sets out interim and alternative objectives as well as winning a case. Careful thought should be given to the specific purpose of the litigation itself, within this broader ecosystem.58 Is it to seek a specific remedy from the courts for a single individual or group of affected persons? To prompt formal engagement with government and catalyse action beyond the court room on their behalf? Or is it to secure long-term law and policy changes? Litigators should consider the linkage between a positive outcome for an individual and the role that courts and tribunals have in shaping the progressive development of the law. Before embarking on litigation, it is necessary first to consider the larger goal that motivates action: what are the most important challenges facing the individual or group on whose behalf litigation could be undertaken? And how do those challenges relate to nationality and/or identity documentation? The answers to these questions should inform the decision to litigate, and continue to inform the assessment of specific questions related to proposed litigation on access to nationality and identity papers. In addition, it is necessary to consider if the lawyers proposing to take on a case have the necessary expertise and time to devote to the case—and, if not, how can expertise and assistance be acquired. Thus, preliminary questions include: 56 Goldston & Dailey, Strategic Litigation Impacts, supra n 20. 57 Treaty bodies is used here as a term that includes all institutions with responsibility for oversight of human rights treaties at UN or regional levels. See also Challenging Ethnic Profiling in Europe: A Guide for Campaigners and Organizers, Open Society Justice Initiative, April 2021, chap. 6 “Using the Law” https://www.justiceinitiative.org/publications/challenging-ethnic-profiling-in-europe-a-guide-for-campaigners-and-organizers; Litigation Toolkit on Statelessness for Legal Practitioners, Volume 1, European Network on Statelessness and AIRE Centre, 2022, updated 2024 pp.8-10, https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/publications/litigation-toolkit-statelessness-legal-practitioners. 58 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 23