the “objective reasons” for leaving or preventing them from (re)availing themselves of UNRWA’s protection or assistance as set out in paragraph 22 below (see also paragraph 26ff on sur place claims). If a person has no objective reasons for not (re)availing themselves of UNRWA’s protection or assistance, then such protection or assistance cannot be regarded or construed as having ceased within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1D when a Palestinian refugee can safely enter the UNRWA area of operation. 20. The inclusion assessment needs to be carried out not only having regard to UNRWA’s mandate and operations, but also to the circumstances of the individual and to relevant and up-to-date country of origin information (COI).37 Objective reasons bringing the applicant within the second paragraph of Article 1D 21. While the drafters of the 1951 Convention envisaged primarily the application of the second paragraph in the event of the termination of UNRWA’s mandate, the phrase “for any reason” is sufficiently broad to include circumstances other than the cessation of UNRWA’s mandate. The travaux préparatoires of the 1951 Convention confirm this interpretation.38 Importantly, where the drafters intended to limit the scope of provisions in other parts of the Convention, they did so explicitly and outlined the possible exceptions.39 22. Objective reasons,40 which bring an applicant within the second paragraph of Article 1D, include: (i) Termination of the mandate of UNRWA41 37 “Country of Origin Information (COI) is information which is used in procedures that assess claims to refugee status or other forms of international protection. COI supports legal advisors and persons making decisions on international protection in their evaluation of: the human rights and security situation; the political situation and the legal framework; cultural aspects and societal attitudes; the humanitarian and economic situation; events and incidents; as well as the geography in claimants’ countries of origin (or, in the case of stateless people, countries of former habitual residence) or countries of transit. To qualify as COI it is essential that the source of the information has no vested interest in the outcome of the individual claim for international protection.” Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation (ACCORD), Researching Country of Origin Information: Training Manual, October 2013, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5273a56b4.html. 38 See for example the statement of the Egyptian delegate, Mr. Raafat, General Assembly, Fifth Session, Official Records, Third Committee, 344th Meeting, 11 December 1950, para. 13, UN doc. A/C.3/SR.344. See also the views of the French delegate, Mr. Rochefort, at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries, Summary of the Second Meeting, 20 July 1951, UN doc. A/CONF.2/SR.2, p. 27. Both documents are available through the UN Official Document System database at http://www.un.org/en/documents/index.html. 39 For example, the drafters of the 1951 Convention set out, in a clearly limited fashion, the list of grounds on which refugee status may be considered to have ceased under Article 1C of the 1951 Convention. See, El Kott, note 9 above, para. 57. 40 In El Kott, the CJEU considered that “objective reasons” included “reasons beyond the person’s control” (i.e. independent of their volition), note 9 above, para. 58. UNHCR considers that there is no significant difference between objective reasons and reasons beyond the person’s control, except as noted in paragraphs 26-28 in relation to sur place claims, where the CJEU’s judgment needs to be read with particular care as it did not apply to sur place claims. 41 See note 2 and paragraph 7 above. 9