a. The termination of UNRWA’s mandate would in principle require a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. This element would consequently apply to the entire class of Palestinians, rather than particular individuals. (ii) Inability of UNRWA to fulfil its protection or assistance mandate b. The discontinuation of UNRWA’s protection or assistance, which would apply to all Palestinians, would need to be determined to have occurred as a matter of fact, in an area of operations or on a country-wide basis. This might occur if, notwithstanding the continued existence of the agency, it were to become impossible for UNRWA to carry out its mission.42 Evidence of this circumstance may be established, for example, by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, annual reports of UNRWA, statements by UNRWA that it has discontinued its activities, or other evidence brought forward by the applicant.43 c. “Protection or assistance” are alternatives: an applicant is not required to establish that both the protection and the assistance of UNRWA have ceased. In relation to the discontinuation of assistance, however, the applicant would need to establish that the assistance pursuant to UNRWA’s mandate has ceased.44 (iii) Threat to the applicant’s life, physical integrity, security or liberty or other serious protection‑related reasons d. Palestinian refugees – as refugees already recognized by the international community via various UN General Assembly resolutions – are not required to establish individually that their treatment constitutes persecution within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention or that they meet the other requirements of the refugee definition in that paragraph, in order to benefit from Article 1D.45 That said, a Palestinian refugee at risk of persecution in the sense of Article 1A(2) would clearly fall within the second paragraph of Article 1D. e. Beyond this, there is a range of threats that may compel a Palestinian to leave UNRWA’s area of operation, with the result that UNRWA’s protection and assistance would cease for him or her. In UNHCR’s view, both group42 El Kott, note 9 above, para. 56. The suspension of non-core services for a short period of time would not suffice. 43 A comparison can be made with the UNCCP, which continues to exist but reports annually to the General Assembly that it is not able to carry out its mandate: see note 3 above. 44 “Given the long-standing and continuing reality of funding deficits, should UNRWA continue to exist but in fact be unable to provide effective protection or assistance due to a lack of funding, there is no reason in principle why this should also not qualify as a cessation of activities under Article 1D, which expressly contemplates cessation ‘for any reason’ as activating the inclusion clause”. AD (Palestine), note 2 above, para. 172. See also, El Kott, note 9 above, paras 63, 65. 45 See for example the Belgian Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, (Council of Alien Law Litigation) decision, which states that the recognition of the refugee status is not based on the existence of a real risk to personal safety, but is automatically granted based on Article 1D given that the person concerned is already a refugee and has demonstrated that he or she can no longer benefit from UNRWA assistance. Arrêt No. 144 563, Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, 30 April 2015, http://www.refworld.org/cases,BEL_CCE,5963b1794.html. 10