ISUFI v. SERBIA DECISION emphasised the consequences of non-registration and of the lack of timely registration for the enjoyment of rights and the prevention of statelessness. They also referred to relevant international standards and highlighted alleged discriminatory barriers faced by Romani communities in this context in Serbia, as well as in the Western Balkans more generally. 13. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that she had suffered a violation of her right to respect for her private and/or family life as a consequence of the “refusal to enter her name into the birth register”. This had allegedly created problems regarding her identity in her relations with her family members and wider society and had deprived her of any legal capacity. The deprivation of her legal capacity had also made it impossible for her to benefit from health insurance or social security schemes, have any property rights, or be recognised as a Serbian national. The applicant also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the respondent State had had a positive obligation to provide for a legal and practical framework which would have allowed for children to be registered “immediately after birth”, in accordance with the relevant international standards (the applicant referred to Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 24 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 6 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child). The applicant emphasised that “immediately after birth” implied “a defined period of days rather than months” (she referred to UNICEF’s Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 3rd edn, September 2007, p. 100) or a period of a “few days or weeks after birth and not months or years later” (she referred to ACERWC’s “General Comment on Article 6 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child”, April 2014, paragraph 79). 14. Under Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8, the applicant complained that she had been discriminated against in the enjoyment of her private and/or family life as a result of the alleged refusal of the Serbian authorities to enter her name into the birth register. She compared her situation to that of other children whose parents, unlike her mother, had been in possession of valid Serbian identity documents. Moreover, the applicant maintained that she had suffered discrimination on the basis of her Romani origin, an ethnic minority group that had been “almost exclusively” affected by the situation in question. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 15. The Government argued that, given the relevant developments in the present case, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The applicant’s mother had also initially failed to properly make use of the relevant domestic judicial remedies, which had contributed to the time needed for the applicant’s birth 3