New Report Draws Attention to UK's Stateless Children

Via Voice of Russia

A new BBC Inside Out episode is causing a flurry in UK news outlets after uncovering a hidden problem: hundreds of stateless children living on London's streets, at risk of exploitation or turning to crime. The report identifies migrant children whom possess no means of identification and are unable to take advantage of social programs, forcing some to turn to crime or prostitution.

One 17-year-old, who fled Libya without her family in 2009, said: “I have to do things that make me sick and ashamed for a few pounds, sometimes even pennies - just so I can eat or get somewhere to sleep for one night.” (The Week)

(If you live in the UK you can watch the clip here.)

This is obviously a horrible problem, but I can't help but wonder: what is the deal with calling all of these kids stateless?

New figures show at least 600 children in the capital are stateless — without a passport or official documentation linking them to their country of residence — and campaigners fear that number is rising.
Many of London’s stateless youths came to the UK legally but were never officially registered, meaning they cannot access education or apply for social housing. For teenagers like 17-year-old Ugandan-born Tony, attempting to become a legal citizen retrospectively can be virtually impossible. (London Evening Standard)

As we know from the 1954 Statelessness Convention, the definition of a stateless person is "a person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law" (Art. 1). Not possessing a passport or documents might be a feature of statelessness, but its not enough. For example, Ugandan boy Tony, above, has a Ugandan father who kicked him out of his home at age 14. So although he is in an awful, heart-wrenching situation, Ugandan boy Tony is not "stateless", he is more likely Ugandan, and undocumented.

I bring this up because it may hurt the cause to call all these children stateless when in fact they are more likely "legally invisible," at risk of statelessness, or undocumented. The international human rights laws and UK immigrations laws applying to those groups are different, and are not as generous. If Tony were in fact stateless, and born in the UK, he would have a right to citizenship there that would simplify his problems tremendously. However, being legally invisible or undocumented he has limited options, at least under migration law. And that is a real problem- one that deserves more attention given the human rights issues at stake for these children.

The presence in each of these pieces of a disclaimer that most of the kids actually arrived in the UK legally suggests the reason for such a misnomer. If the kids were "illegal immigrant" homeless, would it be a news story? Does anyone feel sorry for kids with more complicated immigration issues, who aren't refugees or stateless?

If the public is outraged or concerned about this problem, it certainly doesn't help to call it something else to arouse additional sympathy. Its not necessarily the UK's "Homeless Stateless Kids" problem... might be more like the UK's "Homeless Kids" problem. And whether these children are actually stateless, legally invisible, or undocumented, don't they deserve some help in getting off the streets?

Read More:
Mapping Statelessness in the UK (Report from UNHCR and Asylum Aid)
Interview: Nando Sigona of Refugee Studies Centre (The Voice of Russia)
No Home, No Country, No Future: The 600 Stateless Children Living on London's Rough Streets (Evening Standard)
Hundreds of Stateless Children Live on UK City Streets (The Week)

And meanwhile, a report from Greece doesn't mince words: Teenage Migrants Trapped in Greece (IRIN)

Video: Your ID, Your Rights

This is a neat video from UN Women showing Egyptian women claiming rights such as healthcare, inheritance, marriage and education after obtaining a national ID. The video also shows how the campaign was successful organized as a cooperation between the government and NGOs.

Kind of dry but definitely drives the point home. Check it out!

Serbia: MoU on birth registration of legally invisible Roma

Min. of Human and Minority Rights Milan Markovic

Between being weeks away from an election and locked into an EU accession process, Serbian politicians are in major suck-up mode, especially on transparency and human rights. However, there's no reason not to take today's news optimistically:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Ministry of Human and Minority Rights, Public Administration and Local Self-Government of the Republic of Serbia and the Ombudsman signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing the basis for closer cooperation to address the issue of birth registration of Roma ethnic minority who are not registered in official records. -(google translate of UNHCR Serbia's release)

The deputy head of EU delegation to Serbia, Adriano Martins, was also in attendance. Serbia has been under major pressure to advance the human rights situation of the Roma, and pledged back in December to try to make citizenship more widely available at the UNHCR conference of ministers. So far, however, they have done exactly nothing to implement the 1961 Convention or improve their poorly organized birth registration laws. As it stands, persons are required to present an identity to card to register the birth of their child and therefore, children of legally invisible persons are rendered legally invisible themselves. Since I am working on this issue right now, I have some unofficial, opinionated recommendations for what they should attempt do with this MoU:

1.)With the help of UNHCR, establish a procedure for determining statelessness of parents in order to comply with Article 1 of the 1961 Convention (requiring that children born stateless are granted citizenship.)

2.) Allow all persons giving birth on the territory of Serbia- with or without documents- to register their children at birth, as required by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This should apply to all persons giving birth on the territory without any discrimination.

3.) Allow for late registration of persons who never made it into the birth registry books. Allow for a range of evidence to prove the fact of birth, including use of witnesses and/ or DNA tests.

4.) Make birth registration and late registration mandatory and free, and disseminate information about the benefits of the procedure through various means, such as radio ads.

These steps may be more difficult to implement after elections and the accompanying shuffle in characters, but it does seem as though the time is right for focusing on improvements to human rights standards. I think NGO's and stakeholders should use this momentum and the spotlight of the EU to mount additional pressure on the government to do something other than signing agreements and publicizing them.

Regardless, its great to see the Serbian government paying attention to this issue and ostensibly moving forward towards a solution.

"Nowhere People" Opening in Belgrade Highlights Statelessness

The Serbian Speaker of the House introducing the "Nowhere People" exhibit

Monday in Belgrade was the opening of "Nowhere People"- an exhibit of photographs by Greg Constantine whose beautiful and haunting photos of stateless persons have been featured on the blog before. The opening was hosted by the Speaker of the House, Ms. Dejanovic, and by UNHCR who both congratulated Serbia on taking major steps to reduce statelessness by signing the 1961 Convention as well as pledging to help the legally invisible with the law on non-contentious procedure (that would allow legally invisible persons to be registered.)

As could be expected the photographs were amazing, and well-curated with small explanations next to each in English and Serbian. However the proceedings were just a teensy bit odd in my opinion. After all, its exciting to sign a convention and draft a law, but it doesn't mean much if the convention isn't implemented and the law isn't even put up for a vote. The speeches made it seem as though reducing statelessness in Serbia is a done deal, when in fact the real work hasn't even begun.

Nevertheless, the exhibit was well-attended and certainly brought attention to the issue, as seen by the plethora of stories in the Serbian press on the subject. That's all good... but now let's see less talk and more action!

Photographs and attendees

B92: 30,000 People in Serbia have no personal ID

Plan and UN to Partner up for Birth Registration

According to a press release from the Plan International, a major child's rights NGO, they are announcing a partnership with the UN to promote universal birth registration. What's more, the campaign focuses specifically on children at a risk for statelessness.

Plan and UNHCR will conduct coordinated advocacy at all levels and exchange information on developments on birth registration. The efforts will consider specific needs and concerns of asylum-seeking, refugee, internally displaced and stateless children, as well as children at risk of becoming stateless. The two agencies will jointly identify priority countries and seek to address possible gaps to ensure that every child is registered at birth.

  Sounds like very good news for stateless and legally invisible persons! Naturally I think its a shame that the program focuses on children, when there are still many adults who have never been registered and do not have valid ID or citizenship. However, its a great start and fantastic timing- riding the coat-tails of a huge year for statelessness and UNHCR's big anniversary campaign.

Wonder what countries will be picked out as "priorities?' We'll be following closely.

Plan and UN Join Forces on Birth Registration

Day 2 of the Conference Brings Major Results

Guterres to countries: "Nice work, y'all!"

Its still too soon to judge, but it would appear that the UNHCR conference in Geneva this week was a huge success in garnering increased protection of stateless persons and refugees. Its pretty shocking, actually, how many states were willing to pledge to change their citizenship laws, accede to the Statelessness or Refugee Conventions, or to make asylum procedures or court proceedings more fair. I'm guessing UNHCR staff are asking themselves right now, "Why didn't we do this years ago?"

Let's take a look at some of the big announcements coming out yesterday:

•  The following nations will accede to BOTH statelessness conventions (1954 and 1961) : the Gambia, Haiti, Moldova, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South Sudan, Tanzania, Ukraine, and Yemen. Remember, 1961 confers citizenship on children born stateless in the signatory nation, so this is truly very significant.
•  Serbia joined the 1961 Convention (HUGE) as did Zimbabwe, Columbia, Paraguay, Mozambique, Burundi, Guinea, and Belgium.
• Liberia and Senegal both pledged to amend their laws to allow citizenship to pass through the mother, as well as the father. (A huge strike against statelessness and legal invisibility in those nations.)
• The US made a whole range of pledges, totaling 28, including providing refugee minors with cultural education, working to eliminate the 1-year filing deadline on asylum applications, promote pro-bono legal assistance for undocumented migrant youth, and provide additional services to LBQT asylum seekers and survivors of gender-based violence.
• Australia, Brazil, and 6 other countries pledged to improve methods of identifying stateless population. (Wow, way to go all out there, Australia. Would have liked to see some pledges on the asylum-seeker debacle, but maybe next time)

All in all, over 60 countries made pledges, and as High Commish Guterres noted, the conference marked a "quantum leap" on the issue of statelessness. Despite the very hard work being done on the issue all over the world by smaller agencies and non-profits, today's results are of the sort that can only be accomplished with massive coordination and international pressure. A conference like this shows us that its not time to give up on international cooperation just yet.

Congratulations, UNHCR! The future is looking a lot brighter for stateless persons and refugees.

Non-Citizen News Roundup

Dia de los Muertos in Mexico City

Mexico: Maybe its not strictly relevant, but it is timely: Brujas and Brujos in Mexico find themselves in high demand for problems related to drug cartels. Some witches charge for protection from extortion, or use their senses to find a missing kidnapped relative. And its not just victims turning to the craft: some of the wizards and witches report visits by cartel members and police officers as well.
Mexicans turn to witchcraft to ward off drug cartels (via NY Times)

Australia: Sad news this morning as a capsized  boat carrying asylum seekers left at least 8 dead and 10 still missing,. The boat carried some 70 Iranian, Afghan, and Pakistani asylum seekers determined to make the passage from Indonesia to reach Australia's shores. The incident is causing a big rehashing of the Malaysian swap deal. As Immigration Minister Chris Bowen stated, "it is a fact that when you have more boats coming to Australia you will see more deaths." (So it's either flout the 1951 Convention OR death at sea? Is there possibly a third option?)
10 asylum seekers still missing off Java  (via Sydney Morning Herald)
Australia shock at asylum boat tragedy off Indonesia (via BBC)

Croatia: At a meeting in Zagreb on birth and civil registration, the UNHCR urged Southeastern European countries to accede to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Currently, both Croatia and Bosnia and Herzogovina have acceded, but many other nations in the region have not. Among other protection, the 1961 convention provides that a child born in the country who would otherwise be stateless receives the nationality of the birth country. The UNCHR argued this would help the plight of the region's Roma, who currently represent a majority of the stateless and legally invisible. I couldn't agree more.
UNCHR drives effort to reduce statelessness in Southeast Europe (via Alert Net)

Retroactive Denationalization of Haitians in Dominican Republic

Haitian men sell hats in a Dominican Market -Photo by Dominic Arizona Bonucceli

Between dictators, natural disasters and crushing poverty, life in Haiti has been incredibly rough for years. (Maybe even the last 400 years or so, but you can ask France about that.)  So its no surprise that the country sees a number of migrants leave its borders seeking a better life. Perhaps no country is more aware of this than neighboring Dominican Republic, home to a large Haitian migrant community as well as to a significant population of people of Haitian descent. Now, in an effort to cut down on illegal immigration, the Dominican Republic has taken drastic measures that have rendered many from this population effectively stateless.

The border between the two countries is very porous, and for decades there has been significant labor migration from Haiti to Dominican Republic (often legally and by invitation). There was seasonal migration between to the two countries, particularly for seasonal sugar-cane workers, but many other families in the last century have settled permanently in the DR. These families benefitted from a generous nationality acquisition policy: descendents were entitled to citizenship based on jus soli, i.e., being born on the territory made them Dominican citizens. However, in January 2010 there was a change to the Dominican constitution that effectively put a grandfather clause on citizenship.

Article 18: Nationality. They are citizens:
...(3) Persons born on natural territory, with the exception of sons and daughters of foreign members of diplomatic or consular services, foreigners that are in transit or reside illegally in Dominican territory. They are considered in transit all foreigners as defined in the laws of the Republic. (Translation mine.)

Now, in order to take advantage of D.R.'s jus soli territorial citizenship, one must not only be born in the country, but also born to legally residing Dominican parents. The effect was to instantly render up to 1 million people stateless, including many whom are 3rd and 4th generation Dominican residents.

Understandably given the magnitude of the population, this policy has been difficult to implement in practice. After all, many of Haitian descent already have identity documents, were registered at birth, and until this time considered themselves Dominican citizens. The government now seems to be using piecemeal tactics to denationalize- denial of document renewal, refusal to issue copies of birth certificates, erasure from civil registries, and other insidious means to take rights away from people of Haitian descent. 

But although the tactics are sporadic, Haitian-Dominicans are feeling the effects. Without access to documents they have limited freedom of movement, can't attend to college, drive, or marry. In short, they are deprived of the right to a legal personality.

There has been a recent upswing in attention to this issue. In fact, today there is a brief hearing on the subject at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with appearances by the government and representatives of NGO's. In a few days there will be a conference at Georgetown University on the same subject. Also there will apparently  be a conference at the end of the year in concert with UNHCR aimed at reducing statelessness. However, where I'm standing, this case is very similar to Kuric (the civil registry erasure case) and is ripe for litigation under any number of international legal documents which the Dominican Republic is clearly and wantonly violating.

Here is the 2010 Constitution of the Dominican Republic (in spanish): Consitution de la Republica Dominicana

Here's a very enlightening PBS video on the subject: In Dominican Republic, Haitians Grapple with Stateless Limbo
***Update: Here is the press release from the State Dept. after the event at Georgetown University: Statelessness and the Dominican Republic

Nubians in Kenya- New Case on Birth Registration

Nubian family, ca. 1940, via Nubians in Kenya

There has recently been a very interesting case to come out of Africa that deals with the persistent refusal of the Kenyan government to recognize the nationality of a minority group that has been present in the country for almost a century. The case, Nubian Minors v. Kenya, was brought to the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) by the Institute for  Human Rights and Development in Africa along with the Open Society Justice Initiative. The ACERWC is an institution that deals with interpreting and deciding on issues related the OAU's African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Africa's answer to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Like the CRC, the African Charter provides explicit nationality and legal personality rights for children. Article 6 requires that every child is entitled to a name, a nationality, and birth registration. Further, children who would otherwise be stateless are entitled to the nationality of the country in which they are born. The Nubian Minors case was brought under these provisions, along with the non-discrimination clause and several other collateral clauses.

Nubians from KAR

The Facts

The story of the Nubians of Kenya is old and interesting. Apparently, this group came from the Nuba mountains in present-day Sudan, and were forcibly conscripted by the British in the 19th century into the King's African Rifles. After service, they requested to be sent back to Sudan, but were instead allocated land in Kenya, namely, Kibera, right outside of present-day Nairobi. Next best thing, right? Wrong.

Now here is the tricky part: having been moved to Kenya, most of these people held no Kenyan citizenship. The British also refused to grant citizenship. At the time of Kenyan independence, in 1963, nothing about the Nubians was settled- they were still considered aliens by the government, who also refused to recognize Nubian title to the Kibera settlement. To make matters worse, these status problems were passed by the Nubian Kenyans down to their children. It is allegedly difficult in Kenya to register children in the absence of the parent's identity documents (which as we know, many people of Nubian descent do not possess.) And other human rights organizations have noted discriminatory practices in birth registration, such as refusing to issue a birth certificate. Further, children in Kenya do not receive proof of citizenship until the age of 18, at which point many children of Nubian descent find the fairly straight-forward procedure to verfiy their nationality complicated by discriminatory procedural barriers and delays. The result? Generations of legally invisible and de facto stateless people.

The Case

After considerable efforts to obtain remedies at the state level (see section 15-22 of the Decision) the applicants were able to have the case heard on the merits. The first issue the Court considered is whether the ACRWC grants citizenship from birth. While the reading of art. 6(1) doesn't provide a right from birth, taking into consideration the best interests of the child principle, this is a logical reading. Further, statelessness is particularly devastating for children.

Whatever the root cause(s), the African Committee cannot overemphasise the overall negative impact of statelessness on children. While it is always no fault of their own, stateless children often inherits an uncertain future. For instance, they might fail to benefit from protections and constitutional rights granted by the State. These include difficulty to travel freely, difficulty in accessing justice procedures when necessary, as well as the challenge of finding oneself in a legal limbo vulnerable to expulsion from their home country. Statelessness is particularly devastating to children in the realisation of their socio-economic rights such as access to health care, and access to education. In sum, being stateless as a child is generally antithesis to the best interests of children. (at 46)

 Having said that, the Committee considered several possible arguments by Kenya. First, the fact that some Kenyans of Nubian descent had acquired citizenship through the normal legal procedure. The Committee considered that this did not destroy the central argument, that a significant portion had not, which would be enough to violate their obligation. Second, Kenya could have argued that the Nubian children may be entitled to Sudanese citizenship. In this case, the Committee responded, the government could have tried to cooperate with Sudan to facilitate such granting of nationality, but there was no evidence that they had done so (at 51). In sum, they had violated their obligation to provide children with nationality, birth registration, and to help them avoid statelessness, all in violation of the key provisions of Article 6.

As to the discrimination claim under ACRWC art. 3, the Court found prima facie discrimination. The government's absence made it impossible for them to meet the burden of proof with evidence that the discrimination served a legitimate end, however the Court looked for explanations, and in the end relied on findings by the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights, that  

“the process of vetting… Nubians… is discriminatory and violates the principle of equal treatment. Such a practice has no place in a democratic and pluralistic society” (at 56)

 In the subsequent paragraphs the Court found that these violations also deprived the Kenyan children on Nubian descent of their right to health and their right to education. In other words, positive findings on all fronts for the applicants.

Follow Up

Of course, it remains to be seen what the impact of the case will actually be on affected communities. Kenya was instructed to come up with an implementation plan, which would have to include some legal mechanisms to register extant stateless minor  Nubians as Kenyan, as well as a method of birth registration and subsequent acquiring of citizenship that is non-discriminatory and functioning.

In the meantime, lawyers have some excellent new case-law. This case speaks to, specifically:

• the fact that statelessness is not "in the best interests of the child"
• the link between birth registration and preventing statelessness
• the impact of statelessness and legal invisibility on the ability of a child to access his health and education rights
• additional barriers to birth registration and citizenship on the basis of ethnicity/ origin of parents can constitute discrimination.

All in all a big win, and a situation that lawyers interested in statelessness and legal invisibility will definitely want to keep an eye on.

You can read more on the case here: Open Society Justice Initiatives- Nubian Minors v. Kenya

And for a cool multi-media website on Kenya's Nubians, check out this online exhibit by Greg Constantine: Kenya's Nubians- Then and Now

Consequences of statelessness/ legal invisibility

The inability to prove your own nationality can be a major obstacle in realizing even the most basic of human rights. For example, in many ex-Yugoslav states, all citizens of a certain age are required to hold a valid state-issued identification card which is necessary for accessing a number of social services. The application for the card requires documents that a stateless or legally invisible person is unlikely to possess, such as birth certificate and proof of citizenship. Without this card or other forms of identification, living a normal life is difficult. In Macedonia, for instance, ARKA writes that Roma without verifiable citizenship or birth certificates are denied access to “education, health services, housing, formal employment, financial services social security, justice, property rights, legal marriage, and participation in the democratic process.”  And of course, without a passport, individuals are also restricted in their freedom of movement.

The problem has significance at systemic levels, as well. The lack of accurate statistics on birth rates can mean insufficient budgetary allocations for school and social welfare systems. Additionally, municipal planning policies for housing and basic amenities such as water may be skewed by a lack of official housing registrations. And when the government doesn’t have accurate information about the population, employment policies also suffer. This is a particular issue for populations who are vulnerable to employment discrimination, as Roma often are.

The repercussions also extend to democracy and public safety. Without identification, a significant portion of the population cannot vote or be elected to public office. Further, they are far more vulnerable to practices such as human trafficking and child prostitution. Without official proof of age they may also be at risk for child labor and early marriage. And more generally, without identification the government at every level cannot keep track of this population, or take precautions to ensure their safety. And, when parents are stateless, they are far more likely to pass this status down to their children, since identification is required to register birth and paternity in many cases.

So in sum, statelessness means being paralyzed- unable to access your rights and improve your life- and, like a communicable disease, you have to watch your children go through the same frustrating process without being able to help.

---

Photo via UNHCR.

Statelessness versus Legal Invisibility under International Law

International law identifies two types of stateless people, de facto and de jure. International standards such as the Statelessness Convention are primarily designed to protect de jure stateless persons, ie, those who are legally without citizenship from any country. However, it has long been acknowledged that this definition accounts for only a portion of the individuals who are not receiving the protection of a nation state.

“De facto stateless persons” has been used in the past to refer to those individuals who do not meet the definition of the Statelessness convention, but other than being defined in the negative this term is not widely agreed  upon. A group of UNHCR experts recently defined de facto stateless persons as “persons outside the country of their nationality who are unable or, for valid reasons, are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.” The “valid” reasons for its ineffectiveness generally connect to the reasons for one becoming a refugee under international instruments. For instance, being unwilling to avail oneself of government protection due to persecution on the basis of race, religion, political views, or membership in a particular social group. Escape from genocide or conflict are likely other valid reasons. 

 

The Equal Rights Trust has adopted a more expansive definition. In their “Draft Guidelines on the Detention of Stateless Persons” they write that “a person who has a legal nationality which is not effective- for example, a person who does not benefit from consular protection from his or her country of evident nationality- is considered de facto stateless.” The difference between the two definitions is that one indicates that the de facto stateless person is always at least a refugee, while the other one acknowledges that many individuals lack state protection in a way that falls short of outright persecution.

Regardless of which definition is accepted, it is doubtful that states are legally bound by the Stateless Convention to protect de facto stateless persons. However, many have argued that they should receive the same level of protection, since they are largely facing the same risks. UNHCR has on occasion argued that both categories should receive state protection and a 2010 UNHCR report on the topic argues that de facto stateless persons fall under UNCHR’s mandate, so long as they are outside of their country and unable to receive protection from their home country.

  

Legally Invisible Persons

If de facto stateless persons receive limited protection in comparison to de jure, then even less protected are individuals that fall short of either definition. For example, individuals of indeterminate nationality, or unable to prove their nationality, or inside the country of their origin but unable to receive the protection connected to citizenship.

For the purposes of this blog, individuals barred from enjoying effective citizenship for any reason (short of voluntary disavowal) shall be referred to as  “legally invisible,” a term borrowed from Praxis, a Serbian NGO that works with many such cases. As Praxis points out, legally invisible persons “do not have the possibility to live their lives like other citizens… [they are] not recognized as legal subjects.”  Since the distinction between “legally invisible” and “stateless” may be hazy in some cases, the following list attempts to differentiate between the two groups.

Stateless Persons:

• Are not considered citizens by any state
• Cannot, without hardship, produce documents allowing them to easily gain or regain citizenship
• May have been deprived of citizenship by an act of state, or by the dissolution of the state
• Are in most cases outside their state of origin
• Are, in the case of de facto stateless, unable or unwilling to receive state protection because of recognized reasons, such as due to persecution

Legally Invisible Persons:

• Have a valid claim to citizenship
• Cannot prove this claim due to a number of reasons, such as lack of access to documents, complexity of registration process
• May have automatically acquired citizenship at birth or through other operation of law
• May be inside or outside their state of origin.

In sum, for a person to be stateless, they need to have no citizenship, ineffective or otherwise. Since a determination of this type requires, at the very least, information from both the records of the person and the records of the government, it is not immediately apparent whether a person seeking assistance is de facto or de jure stateless, or legally invisible. However, since the risks for both groups overlap heavily, it makes sense in my opinion to address the problems together, while keeping in mind that these concepts are different and are not totally agreed upon under international law.

COE Commish on Statelessness

Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, has an excellent record so far of bringing attention to Europe's bete noir's: the war on terror, Roma, migrants, and now, the problem of statelessness.

In a speech to the CoE during a conference on nationality, Hammarberg highlighted the problem of statelessness throughout Europe, but especially among the Roma.

A great number of stateless persons are Roma. The problem exists in many countries, but it is particularly acute in the Western Balkans, notably in the countries of ex-Yugoslavia. Several thousand persons, among them many Roma, became victims of the decision in Slovenia in 1992 to erase non-Slovene residents from the Register of Permanent Residents. Many had moved to Slovenia from other parts of Yugoslavia before the dissolution of the federation. It was only in 2010 that this unjust regulation was changed through amendments to the law.

In other states in the Balkans, there are Roma who are without citizenship or even basic identity papers. Those who have moved from the former Yugoslav Federation to other parts of Europe often lack personal documents and live in legal uncertainty. They are de facto stateless. Their newborn children are frequently not registered and risk losing their right to apply one day for citizenship as they cannot prove legal residence in the country

Two important things to note about this speech:
1) He mentions the Slovenian "erasure" problem, the subject of the Kuric case currently referred to the Grand Chamber. ( Kuric and others v. Slovenia App. no. 26828/06). Sounds like he endorses the ECtHR's finding of wrong-doing on the part of Slovenia. (Article 8. if you'll recall.)
2.) He brings up the problem of unregistered (or, "legally invisible") people, and their children who do not receive birth registration, and implicitly endorses them as de facto stateless. Interesting stance.

We'll definitely want to keep an eye on Hammarberg, and the CoE to see what steps they take, if any, to back up their stance on statelessness in Europe.