IDEMIA in the French courts also led to a settlement in which the company agreed to take stronger measures to provide safeguards against adverse impacts of the use of its products, such as the exclusion of already marginalised communities.379 (u focus box D) 7.9. Consequential violations KEY MESSAGES • Statelessness or the arbitrary denial/deprivation of nationality often leads to violations of several other human rights, including freedom of movement, participation in public affairs, the right to family life, and the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. • The choice to focus on these “consequential” violations, or on the lack of recognized nationality from which they arise, should depend on the legal arguments available in the specific forum and be a key element in strategy discussions for framing litigation. The two most evident consequential violations stemming from the lack of nationality and/or identity documents are restrictions on freedom of movement and on political rights—both of which are permitted in some contexts under the ICCPR and other treaties in relation to non-citizens, including stateless persons. Denial or deprivation of nationality, creation (and perpetuation) of statelessness and denial of access to a secure legal status can also amount to an interference with the right to private and family life. Denial or deprivation of nationality, or immigration enforcement proceedings against stateless persons may even, in some circumstances, constitute cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition to these impacts, denial of nationality and/or identity documents frequently impedes access to other rights such as access to health care, education, housing, freedom of expression or association, or even the right to legal representation. Whether to frame a case as primarily about one of these consequential rights, or about the underlying right to nationality and to identity documents, will be a strategic decision in the preparation of litigation (u section 5.1 Issue framing). Freedom of movement and the right to enter and remain in one’s “own country” Article 12 of the ICCPR guarantees freedom of movement, but places restrictions relating to lawful residence. Stateless people may be unable to acquire lawful residence in any country, in the absence of a procedure to recognise stateless person status. In many circumstances, therefore, a consequence of statelessness will be a violation of the right to freedom of movement. Article 12(4) of the ICCPR states that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.” In a General Comment on freedom of movement, the UN Human Rights Committee has considered the interpretation of “own country”: The scope of “his own country” is broader than the concept “country of his nationality.” It is not limited to nationality in a formal sense, that is, nationality acquired at birth or by conferral; it embraces, at the very least, an individual who, because of his or her special ties to or claims in relation to a given country, cannot be considered to be a mere alien. This would be the case, for example, of nationals of a country who have there been stripped of their nationality in violation of international law, and of individuals whose country of nationality has been incorporated in or transferred to another national entity, whose nationality is being denied them.... 380 In the case of Stewart v. Canada, the UN Human Rights Committee noted that the concept of “own country” could encompass “stateless persons arbitrarily deprived of the right to acquire the nationality of the country of such residence.”381 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-idemiaagree-to-vigilance-plan-improvements/. 379 380 Committee on Human Rights, General Comment No. 27: Freedom of movement (Art.12), 1999, para. 20. Stewart v. Canada, CCPR/C/58/D/538/1993, UN Human Rights Committee, 1 November 1996, https://www.refworld.org/cases,HRC,584a90807.html. See also: Nystrom v. Australia CCPR/C/102/D/1557/2007, UN Human Rights Committee, 19 July 2011, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F102%2FD%2F1557%2F2007; Warsame v. Canada, CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010, UN Human Rights Committee, 1 September 2011, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F102%2FD%2F1959%2F2010. 381 84 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