.jpg)
Strategic litigation is a major focus of our work. It involves identifying and pursuing cases on critical human rights issues which if successful are likely to have a high impact at the national, regional or international level. Successful litigation can establish important legal precedents or effect changes in legislation, policy or practice. It can also positively influence public opinion.
A decision whether to work on an individual case is taken after considering established case selection criteria. In addition to reviewing the potential impact of a piece of litigation, we assess our own resources and expertise in order to determine if we can bring real added value to the case. And given that there are number of a differing ways in which we can support a case from simply providing advice, to co-representing applicants in partnership with local lawyers or intervening on issues of public interest as a third party or amicus curiae we also need to review how best we can become involved.
Sometimes there are potential negative effects to consider.How likely are we to win a case? What would the impact be of a negative decision? Could a successful decision have negative consequences, for example by causing a public backlash against the very people we are acting to defend?
Below you will find information on recent cases which INTERIGHTS has been involved with.
2010
Jones v UK, Mitchell & Ors v UK
2009
Malacu and others v Romania (the Poiana Mare Hospital case)
Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli and others v Republic of South Africa
Izevbekhai v Ireland
Catan and 27 Others v Moldova and Russia, Caldare and 42 Others v Moldova and Russia and Cercavschi and 98 Others v Moldova and Russia
Al-Skeini and Others v the United Kingdom
2008
2007
Boumediene and Others v Bosnia and Herzegovina
DH and Others v Czech Republic
Maskhadovy v the Russian Federation
R (on the application of Al Skeini and Others) v the Secretary of State for Defence
2006
2005
2004
