4.6. Parties to the case: identifying complainants and respondents Complainants Stateless people and people at risk of statelessness are partners in litigation. They are clients … but also rights-bearers and co-actors.80 People labelled as non-citizens or without identity documents are a hard client group. Among the most marginalised in society, they exist in great precarity, without legal status in the country, and with no incentive to come forward as complainants in a case and thereby become visible to the state which does not recognise their membership. They have good reason not to trust any authority figure, including a lawyer or human rights group claiming to want to help. If a person does not have identity documents and legal status in the country it may be impossible even to file a case in court, or grant a power of attorney to a lawyer to act on the complainant’s behalf. Even in immigration proceedings, where protection as a stateless person may be a viable route to regularising status and legal aid may potentially be available, it is often preferable to seek protection as a refugee in the first instance, if that claim is arguable, because of the difficulty of proving statelessness and also because of the wider protection that a refugee status often provides. Even more than in any litigation, therefore, it is important to consider the meaning of the case for the affected individual or group, and the ethical questions about the overlapping of the potential plaintiffs’ objectives and those of an organisation seeking to set a precedent. The considerations for a litigator are somewhat different if the primary focus is to assist an individual or a larger group. In the case of an individual who does not form part of a group of people affected by similar problems, the purpose of the litigation in most cases must primarily be to seek a remedy for that person before national courts—with potential precedent-setting effect, but as a secondary purpose. If the authorities offer to settle the case with the issue of papers confirming nationality or other desired status, then this should almost always be accepted, in the interests of the individual—even if it will (as the government intends) remove the opportunity for a court to issue a ruling of more general impact. If a remedy is sought for a group of people affected by similar issues, then the primary purpose of the litigation may be to achieve broader normative advances, with the ambition to reach an apex national court or regional or international forum. In some jurisdictions, it will be possible to bring a case in the name of an organisation rather than an individual, or a class action without naming individual complainants; in others, only named individuals have standing to bring a case. In any event, there will be a need for the case to tell the stories of particular individuals—whether themselves complainants or as witnesses—that represent particular challenges in the law, and that tell the story of its impact, enabling a court to understand why the law needs to change. In either case, it is equally important to build the foundation for the case in close consultation with the affected populations. What are the priorities for that person or group—rather than (or in addition to) the most interesting legal arguments to advance national and international law, or to change policy or practice in a particular way? What is the legitimacy of intermediary organisations that may sponsor the case? Which named complainants have the most compelling stories and can also take on the exposure that involvement in a court case will bring? How can expectations be managed about what may be achieved? Where many members of the same community face difficulties in gaining access to documents recognising nationality, a good approach may be to combine individual legal or paralegal assistance with the ambition to bring a case with wider importance. If as many individuals as possible can be accompanied through the process of seeking identity documents, this provides immediate practical assistance to those affected, builds trust with the community, and may also bring to the surface a case that can indeed set the precedent that unblocks more systemic reform.81   Dominican Republic: The Open Society Justice Initiative discussed potential litigation before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights with several individuals in whose name a case could be brought to challenge the Dominican Republic’s deprivation of nationality from Dominicans of Haitian descent. The litigation was ultimately filed in the name of Emildo Bueno Oguis, representative of the category of people who had previously held all the documents required as evidence of his Dominican nationality, only to be denied renewal of a passport after he had moved to the United States.82 Malaysia: The organisation Family Frontiers, established by women affected by discrimination in Malaysia’s citizenship law, issued a public call for potential plaintiffs in a case to challenge the inability of Malaysian women to transmit citizenship to children born outside of the country. Six women were picked to illustrate particular 80 “Litigation Strategy – 2015-2018”, European Network on Statelessness, 2014. 81 Community-Based Practitioner’s Guide, supra n 67. 82 Case summary: https://www.justiceinitiative.org/litigation/bueno-v-dominican-republic. 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 31