situations and the negative impact of discrimination on the children and families concerned. (u focus box K) North Macedonia: Most stateless persons in North Macedonia are stateless Roma refugees from Kosovo, who are often perceived as a security threat. The European Roma Rights Centre has sought to bring cases on behalf of a more mixed group of plaintiffs, to challenge perceptions based on national security.83 In some situations, however, there is no escaping the fact that a potential complainant is not an attractive figure for litigation: for example, in the case of individuals deprived of nationality on national security grounds, or stateless persons held in immigration detention because the state wishes to deport them to another country on the grounds of criminal activity.84 Respondents The choice of target(s) in litigation—the defendants or respondents—is also a key strategic decision. In turn, this will depend on the most important remedies sought (u section 4.7 Remedies I: Establishing the desired outcomes and u section 5.6: Remedies II: The detailed requests). It is important to be sure that those state agencies that are responsible for implementing these remedies are named as respondents to the case. These may extend beyond the ministries or departments responsible for nationality and/or identity documents and civil registration, to encompass ministries for police, employment, education, health care or housing—and any other state service where consequential harm results from the lack of identity documents. At the regional or international level, the respondent is of course the state. Another strategy that may be employed where rules of procedure allow, is to name oversight bodies such as national human rights institutions as parties to the suit (in addition to the possibility of separately filing a complaint directly with such bodies), to ensure they have the opportunity to make submissions in the case. It is worthwhile considering whether a non-state respondent may also be relevant. State services are increasingly privatised, including the delivery of identity documents. It is often even more difficult to find out the reasons for rejection of an application for official identity documents by a private sector provider than it is from a government agency. New types of exclusion are also created by the technological design and architecture of digital identification systems, the failure of technology such as biometric registration devices; as well as new issues of privacy and data protection, and the risk of misuse of data about marginalised groups and non-citizens. Very often the corporations supplying and managing these systems are multinational and headquartered in another country, sometimes making them difficult to target through litigation—although not impossible. Thus, in building the case, it may be worth considering opportunities (and roadblocks) for simultaneous litigation in different jurisdictions. Such efforts can be costly and difficult to coordinate. There may also be other forms of pressure that could be applied—including public campaigning and shareholder activism—to ensure that those corporations supporting and implementing these new identification systems respect human rights principles.  In 2022, a case was launched in France against the biometrics and security company IDEMIA, asserting that the company had sold technology to Kenya without conducting proper due diligence on human rights risks as required under French law.85 A year later, the plaintiffs agreed to a settlement with IDEMIA in which the company would take measures to provide for stronger safeguards against adverse impacts of the use of its products by governments.86 Early on in the case planning, thought should also be given to potential third party intervenors or expert witnesses, and what specific additional value they could bring to the arguments before court (u section 5.3: Building the evidence and u section 5.5: Third-party interventions). 83 For example, the ERRC filed a case before the civil courts in North Macedonia on behalf of both Roma and non-Roma people affected by non-registration of births. ”North Macedonia: ERRC & MYLA Sue Authorities for Discrimination of Roma & Other Unregistered Persons”, 08 December 2022, https://www.errc.org/ press-releases/north-macedonia-errc--myla-sue-authorities-for-discrimination-of-roma--other-unregistered-persons. NZYQ v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor, Case No. S28/2023, High Court of Australia, Judgment of 28 November 2023, https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_s28-2023. 84 85 “NGO Data Rights Files Case Against Biometric Tech Giant IDEMIA in France for Failure to Consider Human Rights Risks” (Press Release), Data Rights, 29 July 2022, https://datarights.ngo/news/2022-07-29-kenya-due-diligence-biometric-id-case/. “NGOs and IDEMIA agree to Vigilance Plan Improvements in Settlement over Kenyan Digital ID Human Rights Challenge” (Press Release), Data Rights, 24 July 2023, https://datarights.ngo/news/2023-07-24-ngos-and-idemia-agree-to-vigilance-plan-improvements/. 86 32 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