5.6. Remedies II: The detailed requests The types of remedy sought in litigation will vary according to what is available in any jurisdiction, as well as by the national political context, and the needs of the particular complainants. The typical litigant in a case about access to nationality and documentation seeks to have government conduct declared wrongful, their status as a citizen confirmed or granted, and—ideally—to be compensated for the harm suffered by previous non-recognition. International and regional courts and other treaty bodies usually only offer general remedies, such as recommending or ordering changes in legislation, or other forms of structural change, although they may also award damages for non-pecuniary loss, and recommend that the state assess and pay compensation. At national level, there is likely to be a wider range of options, including remedies that may be declaratory (for example, stating that a person is already a citizen), material (financial or other compensation), injunctive (legal or procedural reform), or symbolic, including punitive damages awards.148 In some jurisdictions there is the possibility to request the court to order that the respondent must report back within a reasonable time on the implementation of a judgment. Declaratory remedies In many cases, a primary remedy sought from a court will be a declaration that an individual or group of people are in fact nationals of the country where their case is being litigated. There are many individual cases in countries across the world in which courts order the executive branch to recognise an individual’s nationality on the basis that legal requirements are fulfilled, and issue documents accordingly. Courts have also made judgments applying to members of a general category:  The High Court of Bangladesh adopted two important judgments that declared members of the Urdu-speaking minority in Bangladesh to be citizens, where they fulfilled the provisions of the Citizenship Act, and ordered identity documents to be issued accordingly.149  In South Africa, the Constitutional Court declared sections of the Citizenship Act unconstitutional because they denied citizenship to children born outside of South Africa with one parent who was a citizen, upheld the High Court declaration that the appellants were citizens, and ordered the issuing of identity documents. In considering the appropriate relief, the court noted that: citizenship does not depend on a discretionary decision; rather, it constitutes a question of law…. [I]f the requisite conditions to acquire citizenship are satisfied, the Department of Home Affairs is required to recognise this citizenship and proceed with the concomitant administrative procedures, without any further consideration.150 In Uganda, the High Court considered the situation of Ugandans of Somali ethnicity with roots in the country since before independence and issued a declaration that the plaintiffs were Ugandan citizens, ordering the Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control to issue national identity cards to eligible applicants.151  Aiming at broader impact, litigators may ask a court to declare a provision of the law to be unconstitutional. A number of apex national courts have made such declarations in case of legal provisions discriminating on the basis of sex:  The Botswana Supreme Court held that provisions of the Citizenship Act which discriminated against women in transmission of citizenship to their children were unconstitutional.152  The Constitutional Court of Benin similarly found provisions of the nationality code discriminating on the basis of sex to be unconstitutional.153  The Sudanese Constitutional Court found that changes to the law that had denied Sudanese nationality to the children of one Sudanese parent and one South Sudanese parent were unconstitutional.154 148 The five headings on the right to remedy established by the UN General Assembly in case of gross violations are: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law”, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 60/147, 16 December 2005, UN Doc. A/RES/60/147, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-and-guidelines-right-remedyand-reparation. See also, Dinah Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (OUP, 3rd ed, 2015). 149 The two judgments are available in Namati and Council of Minorities, ‘Citizenship Rights of Urdu-Speaking Bangladeshis’. See also u focus box I. Yamikani Vusi Chisuse and Others v Director-General, Department of Home Affairs and Another, CCT 155/19, South African Constitutional Court, Judgment of 22 July 2020, para. 88., https://collections.concourt.org.za/handle/20.500.12144/36628?show=full. 150 Abdu Abucar Hussein and 7 others v Attorney General, Uganda High Court, Civil Suit No. 437 of 2019 (18 March 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 49, https://citizenshiprightsafrica.org/uganda-abdu-abucar-hussein-and-7-others-v-attorney-general/. 151 152 Attorney-General v. Dow, Botswana Court of Appeal, judgment of 3 July 1992, 1992 BLR 119 (CA). 153 Décision DCC14-172 du 16 septembre 2014, Cour constitutionelle du Bénin, https://citizenshiprightsafrica.org/benin-decision-dcc14-172-du-16- septembre-2014/. Mazin Adil Ali Deng and others v. Ministry of Interior and another, Sudan Constitutional Court judgment of 23 August 2016, https://citizenshiprightsafrica.org/ mazin-adil-ali-deng-and-others-vs-ministry-of-interior-and-another/. 154 48 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