Case No. UKUT-00241-(IAC)

13. The appellant challenges the judge’s decision on two principal grounds. 14. Firstly , the judge misdirected himself in holding that VB dealt with the issue whether those conscripted or mobilised were at risk of being associated with breaches of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) , and failed to make any express finding on this point in light of the further country evidence. In her grounds M s Norman referred to this as the ‘IHL point’. 15. Ms Norman relied on paragraphs 6 and 7 of VB . These read, 6. It was agreed with the parties that this deci sion would also seek to provide Country Guidance on the following issues: (i) What are the likely punishments for draft evasion in Ukraine ? (ii) Are prison conditions for draft evaders in Ukraine contrary to Article 3 of ECHR, or has there been a significant and durable change in Ukraine such that the country guidance decision of