Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2014-eng

126 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6
character of the State of destination and whether the actors from whom
the violation is feared are under the control of the central government
or of the federated States are points to be taken into consideration.
However, the transfer to one safe zone of the country must not in itself
put the person at risk of being subject to such treatment. If the person
cannot travel to the area concerned, gain admittance and settle there,
without being free from the risk of violations or ending up in a part of
the country where he could be subject to them, the non-refoulement
concern will persist. 371
In the case Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of
Human Rights established a set of criteria to assess when internal relocation
would comply with the principle of non-refoulement: “as a precondition
of relying on an internal flight alternative, certain guarantees have
to be in place: the person to be expelled must be able to travel to the
area concerned, gain admittance and settle there, failing which an issue
under Article 3 may arise, the more so if in the absence of such guarantees
there is a possibility of his ending up in a part of the country of origin
where he may be subjected to ill-treatment [. . .]”. 372 In a case of relocation
within Iraq, the Court underlined that “[o]ne factor possibly weighing
against the reasonableness of internal relocation is that a person is persecuted
by a powerful clan or tribe with influence at governmental level.
However, if the clan or tribe in question is not particularly influential, an
internal flight alternative might be reasonable in many cases.” 373
Box 10. The Dublin III Regulation
The European Union Regulation 604/2013 (“Dublin III
Regulation”), which replaced Regulation 343/2003 (“Dublin II
Regulation”), holds that only one Member State may examine
the application for international protection of a third country
national. The Regulation sets for a number of criteria to be
used to identify which Member State is responsible for such
protection. By way of exception, a State retains the discretion
to examine an application lodged with it, regardless of the
regulation’s criteria, and, in this case, becomes the State responsible
for the application. 374
371 Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 317, para. 141.
372 Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 327, para. 266; D.N.M. v. Sweden,
ECtHR, Application No. 28379/11, Judgment of 27 June 2013, para. 54.
373 S.A. v. Sweden, ECtHR, op. cit. fn. 338, para. 53.
374 Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for
determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international
protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless
person (recast), EU, OJ L 180/31, 29.6.2013, Article 17 (EU Dublin Regulation).