Case No. UKUT-00544-(IAC)

36. In paragraph 1.3.34 of its Country Information and Guidance – Iraq: the security situation in the ‘contested’ areas of Iraq (August 2014), 22/08/2014 it is concluded that the contested areas of Iraq, include Kirkuk, Diyala, Anbar, Salah al Din and Ninewah governorates and should be considered as areas of internal armed conflict for the purposes of any risk assessment . It is further stated that “although all cases must be considered on their individual merits, based on the current objective evidence, decision makers are advised that in the vast majority of cases, the combined individual and collective risk factors are such that return to a contested area would be in breach of Article 15 of the Qualification Directive and therefore a grant of Humanitarian Protection would be appropriate if internal relocation was not possible” . 37. At paragraph 1.4.1 of its later Country Information note – Iraq: Internal relocation (and technical obstacles), 24/12/2014 the Home Office conclude that current return arrangements from the UK to Iraq, either via Erbil or Baghdad, do not breach Article 3 of the ECHR. However, at paragraph 1.4.3 thereof it also stated that “a person returned to Iraq who was unable to replace their Civil Status ID Card or Nationality Certificate would likely face significant difficulties in accessing services and a livelihood and would face destitution which is likely to reach the Article 3 threshold ”. 38. In its April 2015 guidance Iraq : Security situation in Baghdad , southern governorates and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq , , the Home Office state that: (i) The security situation has deteriorated in Baghdad , Babil, and the southern governorates, while the situation remains relatively stable in the IKR. However, the situation has not deteriorated to such an extent that it has reached a level where it can be said that in general the situation for ordinary civilians in these governorates breaches Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. (ii) Decision makers should consider whether there are particular factors relevant to the person’s individual circumstances which might nevertheless place them at enhanced risk, particularly in Baghdad and Babil governorates; (iii) The security situation remains fluid and decision makers should take into account up-to-date country information in assessing the risks faced by applicants; (iv) Internal relocation may be a viable option but only if the risk is not present in the place of relocation and it would not be unduly harsh to expect a person to relocate. Each case must be considered on its individual merits. 39. In relation to Baghdad in particular it is concluded that “there currently exists a state of internal armed conflict between ISIL and the Government of Iraq and its allies in Iraq, with the violence principally in northern, central and western areas of Iraq” , and “although recent successes by Kurdish, GoI and US-Coalition forces have pushed back ISIL from territories it occupied in mid-2014 and degraded its military capabilities, ISIL remains in control of parts of the country, although not in Baghdad governorate. ISIL continues to perpetrate attacks in Baghdad governorate, with an ultimate goal of securing its so-called ‘Caliphate state’ in Iraq and Syria ” . 40. It further said that “there are a range of armed actors currently operating in Baghdad governorate, including Shiite and Sunni militias, extremist Islamic groups including ISIL, organised criminal gangs as well as Iraqi security forces. However, there were no reports that ISIL, or other Sunni extremist groups, exercise de facto control in any district of Baghdad City or Baghdad Governorate” . 41. As to the southern governorates, it is opined that the security situation in the governorates of Basra , Kerbala, Najaf, Muthanna, Thi-Qar, Missan, Quadissiya and Wassit remained relatively stable in 2014 and that in general return there would not give rise to a breach of Article 15(c). Similarly, in relation to the IKR, it said that the security situation in the governorates of Erbil , Sulamaniyah and Dahuk was stable in 2014 with low levels of violence. 42. Finally in relation to Babil the Respondent concludes in her Country Information and Guidance titled ‘Iraq: Security situation in Baghdad, southern governorates and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI)’ that “there has been a deterioration in the security situation in Babil governorate since 2012 and 2013 ” and that “the government maintains control over the majority of the governorate, including the northern part of Babil around Jurf Al-Sakhr, which was previously an ISIL strong-hold from which it launched attacks on the surrounding area and manufactured car bombs. By the end of 2014 ISIL’s presence in Jurf A-Sakhr had been cleared, with insurgents routed further north. This military success had improved the security situation considerably. However there remained a risk of further violence, both from renewed armed conflict and as a result of IEDs left behind by insurgents” . 43. At paragraph 1.3.25 it is further said that “ while levels of violence have increased in Babil compared to previous years, conditions have not deteriorated to the extent that a person returning there would face a breach of Article 15(c)” . However, it adds that “while in general a return to Babil would not breach Article 15(c), decision makers must also consider whether there are particular factors relevant to the person’s individual circumstances which might nevertheless place them at risk. Such factors include – but are not limited to – the person’s age, gender, health, ethnicity, religion, sect, disability and profession. Some persons, especially those who reside in areas where they are a minority, may face a heightened risk of indiscriminate violence” .