jurisdictions specific courts or tribunals are established for the adjudication of nationality matters; however, other courts may also have concurrent jurisdiction. For example, a children’s court may be most suitable, where such courts exist, rather than the regular courts for nationality matters or for general contentious proceedings. There may also be the possibility of bringing a complaint to a national human rights institution on grounds of illegitimate discrimination, or to an ombuds office for administrative malpractice. Similarly, at supranational level, there may be a choice to bring different aspects of a case to different regional or international courts and treaty bodies. There may also be a choice of complainants and of defendants to be named as the parties to the case, or to different cases in different fora; this choice also has strategic implications, as well as ethical ones. It is important to agree to the approach to the case with the affected individual or group that will be named as the complainant, and to ensure that there is mutual understanding among different parties; for example, between the potential complainants and those of an organisation seeking to set a precedent. Choice of defendant should include not only the government department responsible for nationality or identity documents, but might extend to other ministries. In some contexts it could also be possible to name a national human rights institution, to prompt them to intervene in a case. It may also be possible that non-state respondents could be defendants to litigation on the right to nationality. Terminology and framing Among the challenges in litigating statelessness and the right to a nationality are the different possible definitions of the terms used for these statuses, both at international and at national levels. The Guide sets out some of the debates around the terminology surrounding nationality and statelessness in national and international laws, in particular in relation to the interpretation of the definition of “stateless person”. Questions of framing are critical to the success of litigation. The framing of a case must be shaped both by the legal arguments available in the particular jurisdiction, and by the specific outcomes sought by the complainants. An early decision may indeed be whether to present the situation of a person or group excluded from recognition of nationality as one of “statelessness”. The international law obligations in relation to the prevention and reduction of statelessness are especially likely to be helpful for those in a migratory context, and may also add weight to arguments on behalf of those who are not recognised as nationals in the country where they have the strongest connections. In some contexts, however, the label of stateless person may hinder efforts to claim recognition of nationality that is in principle already granted automatically, by operation of law. Presenting the case as related to non-discrimination, the right to a hearing and due process, or the right to birth registration, legal identity and recognition as a person before the law may be more effective. Practitioners must tailor their approach to the specific legal, factual, and political context. Building the evidence It can be challenging to build the evidence in cases relating to nationality and statelessness. Judges may need more information about the complexities of the interpretation of nationality law in transnational context and over what might be a long period of time. Expert opinion is often needed to supplement the experience of the litigator, including laws. Third-party interventions may also be of great use. The Guide outlines strategies for gathering and presenting evidence in these challenging cases. If litigation is undertaken on behalf of a group disproportionately affected by exclusion from recognition as nationals, it may in addition be necessary to compile detailed documentation of the impact of the substantive law and procedural requirements on that group. Designing remedies The development of detailed requests for remedies is one of the most important elements of planning litigation, especially on behalf of a group of people who share some characteristics, but where the details of each case vary. A key part of planning litigation is to prioritise the legal remedies desired, and to think through the supporting evidence that must be presented to the court to justify a request for the particular solutions. It may be necessary to establish a list of categories of the affected persons, and the legal and procedural remedies desired for each category, and those that are common to all. The most important remedy sought will usually be that a person or category of persons be declared to be nationals under the law and to be issued identity documents accordingly, or to be eligible to acquire nationality, whether as a stateless person or on some other ground. Direct remedies for individuals or groups could also include an order that the complainants be given access to other rights and services. In some cases, there may be the possibility not only of seeking individual compensation but also symbolic or punitive damages. However, remedies requested may go beyond seeking individual relief for the complainants to call for systemic legal and procedural reforms. Practitioners should consider remedies that lead to procedural changes, broader legal reforms, and long-term solutions for those affected by statelessness, in order to benefit a wider group. A similar 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 9