Litigation Toolkit on Statelessness: Volume I October 2022 domestic context (e.g., jurisprudence, networks, partnerships and other sensitivities), with the sole purpose of litigating a case in order to improve their track record and visibility. The latest phenomenon is frowned upon and is in no way consistent with the larger aim and purpose of impact litigation. What to remember to identify and prioritise cases:      Ensure a clear understanding of the issues Establish priority areas within your area of expertise and where you bring added value Prioritise cases that address a systematic, widespread problem on the ground; and/or that address gaps in legal protection Actively monitor pending and recent international, regional and national jurisprudence Regularly reflect on your casework to find systematic and strategic issues 2.3. Strategic assessment Once a case has been identified as potentially strategic, it is then necessary to make an assessment as to whether, and how, it should be taken forward, whether through direct representation or third-party intervention, what would be the most suitable mechanism and which role you are best placed to assume. An assessment should consider the strengths and weaknesses of the facts of the case, the complaints (legal violations) that are alleged, as well as the expertise that can be added to the case. 2.4. Strengths of the case and advantages When considering the strengths of a case, one consideration may be the potential impact of a case in one or multiple countries, and whether it provides an opportunity to raise specific legal arguments that may not otherwise be addressed by the court or mechanism. The primary benefit of impact litigation is the potential to document injustices. Litigation creates an official record of practices, evidencing abuse and telling victims’ stories. By identifying particular issues, or particular alleged violations, it provides an opportunity to try to shape the way in which the court will interpret and apply the legal framework and applicable human rights provisions, and will offer an opportunity to apply these arguments consistently in many cases. In cases before regional courts and international bodies, it may also promote the harmonisation of issues across several countries. Practitioners should therefore assess whether a given case has the potential to achieve this goal. Other considerations include assessing whether strategically litigating a case will seize the political momentum and foster certain policy changes; whether it may be useful to lobby politicians and persuade public bodies to reconsider their policies; whether it will help frame issues as problems of law rather than of minority politics; or whether this issue is better suited to be addressed before courts, as the role of the judiciary is to be an impartial and independent body that is well positioned to interpret and apply the law in line with international and human rights instruments. 9