Case No. UKUT-00544-(IAC)

87. As identified above, the instant appeal was remitted by the Court of Appeal to the Upper Tribunal for reconsideration under Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. The burden of proof rests on the Appellant, albeit the standard of proof is low. 88. Given that this is a Country Guidance decision, and is restricted to consideration of Article 15(c), it is prudent first to reiterate the following observation made by this Tribunal in HM2 : “260. Our primary focus in these appeals is strictly confined to Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, and a discrete issue relating to risk on return to BIAP. However, since this case deals with the current situation in Iraq it will inevitably be a reference point for decision-makers deciding asylum-related appeals brought by Iraqis that are not confined to the Article 15(c) issue. In this context we would reiterate the observations made recently by the Tribunal in AK (Afghanistan ) at [154]-[156] that in the general run of appeals decision-makers should ordinarily deal first with the issue of refugee eligibility and only deal with the issue of subsidiary protection (including Article 15(c)) second. They should not deal with Article 3 until last.” 89. Both parties accepted that we should take an inclusive approach to our consideration of Article 15(c). This was the approach adopted by the Tribunal in both HM1 and HM2 as well as in numerous other country guidance decisions of this Tribunal. We remind ourselves that such an approach requires an analysis of the violence that is both qualitative and quantitative and is not to be restricted to a purely quantitative analysis of the number of civilian deaths and injuries in Iraq, or in any particular governorate within Iraq. The list of factors relevant to such an analysis is non-exhaustive but includes within them the conduct, and relevant strength, of the parties to the conflict (see, for example,