protection (called Humanitarian Protection in the UK). The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision and refused permission to appeal further. The Court of Appeal also refused permission for further appeal. HA applied to the European Court on Human Rights, claiming that the UK courts had failed to properly consider the future risk of serious harm by armed groups in the camp in terms of violations of his rights under ECHR Article 3. The European Court of Human Rights posed two questions to the parties, for future consideration: “1. Has there been a violation of Article 3, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13, on account of the failure of the domestic courts to examine whether the applicant’s risk of forcible recruitment by extremist groups in the Ein El-Hilweh camp gave rise to a real risk that he would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention upon return to Lebanon? 2. Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention upon return to Lebanon?”151 The parties were required to respond to these questions, and the case was not yet decided as of November 2021.152 It seems evident that if the risk of harm violating ECHR Article 3 is established, then HA’s status as a refugee in accordance with Article 1D should also be established, as it should be considered that he cannot return to Lebanon and access UNRWA assistance or protection, for reasons beyond his control, if he would face Article 3 violations there. He may also benefit from arguments relating to inability to live a life of dignity and safety in Lebanon, as per recent CJEU jurisprudence (Serin Alheto, XT). A 2019 UK case, Nader,153 concerned a Palestinian born and raised in Saudi Arabia, who moved to Lebanon to study for a year, then returned to Saudi Arabia but was abused and deported back to Lebanon. The applicant was registered with UNRWA in Lebanon and stayed with his grandmother in a refugee camp during part of his time in Lebanon. The UK’s Upper Tribunal generally followed the El Kott approach in the factors it considered material, observing that it appeared the applicant had twice departed from Lebanon voluntarily, and that there was no evidence that the applicant would be refused entry into Lebanon or face human rights violations there. The applicant had not demonstrated that UNRWA assistance or protection had ceased for reasons beyond his control. From the decision, it appears that no evidence had been submitted showing that the applicant’s rights would be violated or that he could not live in dignity in Lebanon. Thus, the applicant’s case failed, possibly due to insufficient evidence of the conditions in Lebanon.154 In another 2019 case of a Palestinian from Gaza, OJ,155 the UK’s Upper Tribunal took a flawed approach with respect to Article 1D. The Upper Tribunal held that there was a risk of serious harm in Gaza, documented in an expert report, but allowed the appeal only on humanitarian protection grounds. The judge incorrectly states that Article 1D applies to exclude the applicant as he was “presently receiving protection from UNRWA”156 – factually incorrect as the applicant was in the UK at the time, could not return to Gaza for reasons beyond his control, and even if that was possible, as demonstrated previously, UNRWA does not provide protection but assistance. This approach is not consistent with the inclusion clause of Article 1D, CJEU jurisprudence, UNHCR’s guidance, nor the UK Home Office’s guidance on Article 1D.157 151 Ibid, HA v UK. 152 S Chelvan, ‘Insight Note’ (33 Bedford Row Chambers, 22 March 2021) https://33bedfordrow.co.uk/insights/news/who-ismy-father-strasbourg-court-uk-government [accessed 30 June 2022]; and correspondence between S Chelvan and Cynthia Orchard in November 2021. 153 Nader v SSHD [2019] UKAITURPA113132018, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2019/PA113132018.html. 154 See in particular paras 33-35, stating that there was no evidence of risk of human rights violations or that Lebanon would refuse entry or renewal of the applicant’s travel document. 155 OJ v SSHD [2019] UKAITUR PA093312018, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2019/PA093312018.html. 156 OJ, Para 19. 157 Home Office, Asylum Policy Instruction, ‘Article 1D of the Refugee Convention: Palestinian Refugees Assisted by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)’ n 148.. 28