While the 2003 Khan case was an important milestone, it failed to transform Government policy on a systemic basis for all Urdu-speakers. The High Court’s decision was limited to determining the citizenship status and right to register as voters of the 10 petitioners who participated in the case. This decision joined a series of prior legal decisions that upheld the Urdu-speakers’ right to Bangladeshi citizenship as a matter of law but had not been implemented with respect to the whole population.12 As Bangladesh began to prepare for elections in 2007, the Election Commission registered some Urdu-speakers who had integrated into Bangladeshi society to vote as Bangladeshi nationals, but continued to systematically avoid approaching Urdu-speakers living in the long-established camps and settlements, thereby perpetuating the Government’s policy of not considering these Urdu-speakers as Bangladeshi nationals. In 2007, political tensions resulted in the declaration of a state of emergency and the creation of a caretaker Government, which pledged to ensure meaningful elections. The political stalemate that delayed the elections presented another opportunity for a group of Urdu-speakers to go to court to seek a wider ruling that would benefit the Urdu-speaking community at large, particularly the camp-based population. In the case of Khan v. Election Commissioner (2008)13 (2008 Khan case), a group of 11 Urdu-speaking petitioners residing in two camps in Dhaka filed another petition with the High Court. The petitioners presented evidence that the Election Commission had adopted a policy of not enrolling campbased Urdu-speakers. The court ruled in the petitioners’ favour. It directed the Election Commission to enrol not only the petitioners as Bangladeshi citizens eligible to vote, but also all adult Urdu-speaking people living in camps in Bangladesh. The court also urged the Commission to provide these individuals with national identity cards without delay. The resolution of the statelessness status of the Urdu-speakers of Bangladesh was achieved at a time of political transition in the country. The formation of a caretaker Government in 2007 presented an opportune moment for the authorities to move beyond entrenched prejudice against the Urdu-speaking community. It was in this environment that the 2008 Khan case was pursued in court alongside direct advocacy with the Government by national NGOs and community organizations. Multi-level advocacy to implement the decision in the 2008 Khan case Though strategic litigation in the courts played a catalytic role in resolving the statelessness status of the Urdu-speaking community of Bangladesh, the eventual reform of policy that allowed the Supreme Court’s ruling to be implemented was the result of advocacy by community-based and national actors, as well as the international community. Following the decision in the 2003 Khan case, UNHCR boosted its efforts to encourage policy reform as a means of tackling statelessness among the Urdu-speakers of Bangladesh. By 2005, UNHCR had approached the Government for discussions on how to uphold the nationality rights of the Urdu-speaking communities. UNHCR also worked with its UN sister agencies and the diplomatic community in Bangladesh to highlight the plight of the stateless Urdu-speakers. This resulted in a coordinated UN inter-agency approach designed to assist the Urdu-speaking community. The UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative gave priority to assisting the stateless Urdu-speakers in the UN Country Team’s goals for 2005 and 2006. Meanwhile, UN Habitat and UNICEF implemented projects to improve housing and child protection among Urdu-speaking communities. 12 The Supreme Court in Khan v. Bangladesh (2003), for example, cited the case of Mukhtar Ahmed v. Bangladesh from 1977, which considered the Bangladeshi nationality status of an Urdu-speaker who had applied to relocate to Pakistan in the immediate aftermath of the creation of independent Bangladesh. In that case, the Court ruled that simply registering for relocation neither conferred Pakistani citizenship on an individual, nor extinguished the petitioner’s acquisition of Bangladeshi nationality. The case of Abdul Khlaeque v. the Court of Settlement (1992) upheld this ruling, while in another, Bangladesh v. Professor Golam Azam (1994), the Bangladeshi Appellate Court ruled that even an Urdu-speaker who was politically active as pro-Pakistan fell within Bangladesh’s laws and was to be considered as a Bangladeshi national. The Bangladeshi Government consistently refused to translate these court decisions into a systemic policy recognizing the Bangladeshi nationality of the Urduspeaking community. 13 Md. Sadaqat Khan (Fakku) and Others v. Chief Election Commissioner, Bangladesh Election Commission, Writ Petition No. 10129 of 2007, Bangladesh: Supreme Court, 18 May 2008, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a7c0c352.html. 11 CAMPAIGN TO END STATELESSNESS WITHIN 10 YE ARS