Settlement At both national and regional or international level, there may be the possibility of settling a case. If the government is seeking to avoid a precedent or bad publicity that may strengthen demands for systemic change, it may offer to settle cases before they reach court, or not appeal an adverse decision of a lower court. The interests of the client demand—in most cases—that a settlement recognising nationality and issuing identity documents be accepted, rather than a fight to the end on the principle and policy. However, where possible, and especially where the complainant is one of a large number of similar cases, a settlement should also seek to identify structural reforms that may assist a wider group of people.  In South Africa, a case brought by Lawyers for Human Rights was settled with the agreement not only that the status of the individuals in the case should be granted South African citizenship, but also that the Department of Home Affairs should adopt regulations enabling other stateless children in the same situation to apply for citizenship.171 6. AFTER A JUDGMENT KEY MESSAGES • In most cases, a court judgment will be only one component of an effort to remedy the situation of individuals or groups denied recognition of nationality. • Even if the case is wholly successful in court, there will be the need to follow up to ensure that a judgment is implemented. • Thinking about the aftermath of a positive or negative result is an integral part of the planning of the litigation from the outset. A court judgment, whether successful or unsuccessful, is never the end of advocacy for recognition of nationality and issue of identity documents. In some cases, it may mark the start of a much more intensive campaign outside the courts, whether for the judgment to be applied, or for legislation to overturn the implications of a ruling. Litigators need to consider from the start who would be their partners for this work, how they can best work together, and the support that is needed to enable this to happen. Litigators should return to the power mapping undertaken in the early framing of a litigation strategy: who has the authority and means to secure the implementation of the decision, do they know about the decision, how can they be moved to action, what obstacles stand in the way? How can the political will to implement the decision be created or supported? Are there major political pressure points on the horizon (elections, proposed legislative reforms, anniversaries)? What about other opportunities for advocacy in international forums, such as the Universal Periodic Review process of the UN, or major international events in which the state concerned plays a prominent role? Following a decision at national level, among the factors to consider are: • Preparation for the possibility of appeal through the national courts, whether by the applicants or by the state. • Consideration of a complaint to a regional or international treaty body or court, If unsuccessful at the apex court at national level—in some cases, national litigation may even be launched in the expectation of failure in the national courts, in order to challenge national law by seeking the establishment of a normative principle at international level. • Advocacy for implementation of a favourable judgment. Here, the work done in requesting detailed remedies (u section 5.6: Remedies II: The detailed requests) will bear fruit—since, beyond the individual relief granted the applicants, court orders for specific legislative, procedural or policy reform can establish the legal basis for civil society to demand that such changes are not only adopted in principle but also brought into effect in practice. • Invoking any mechanisms for court monitoring of compliance with a decision, in jurisdictions where there is that possibility, based on a request that the court to order that the government report back on steps it has taken to do so (u section 5.6). • Establishing a database of those impacted, to ensure that successful court judgments are applied for the benefit 171 Minister of Home Affairs and Others (appellants) v. DGLR and Another (respondents), Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, Appeal Case 1051/2015, 6 September 2016. Court documents including the consent order available at http://citizenshiprightsafrica.org/south-africa-dglr-and-another-vs-minister-ofhome-affairs-and-others/. 52 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