are actually registered with that agency, or actually receiving assistance.”25 To interpret Article 1D(1) as an exclusion clause in that sense would be incorrect, as it would ignore the character of Article 1D as a “contingent inclusion clause.”26 It would also be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the 1951 Convention and, in particular, with the aim of Article 1D itself, which is to ensure continuity of protection for a class of persons who are already recognised as refugees by the international community. 13. Moreover, the object and purpose of the 1951 Convention and of its provisions relating to Palestinians require that the words “at present receiving” in the first paragraph of Article 1D are understood to mean (i) “persons who were and/or are now receiving” protection or assistance, or (ii) who are eligible for such protection or assistance. Those Palestinians who are eligible are described at paragraph 8. By capturing both those actually receiving, as well as those eligible to receive the protection or assistance of UNRWA within Article 1D(1), the continuing refugee character of Palestinian refugees is acknowledged, as is their entitlement to protection. 14. In UNHCR’s view, it would be incompatible with the object and purpose of Article 1D to remove from its scope those Palestinian refugees who have not accessed UNRWA protection or assistance, despite being eligible, but are nonetheless in need of 1951 Convention protection under the second paragraph in Article 1D. 27 Such a narrow interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 1D would actually result in the denial of protection for many Palestinian refugees, whose refugee character is already established, creating gaps in the protection regime.28 15. Moreover, similarly situated persons who were displaced as a result of the same conflict would be subject to different treatment depending on whether they availed themselves of assistance or not and depending on where they fled. Some would be examined under Article 1D while others would be examined under Article 1A(2). An interpretation which differentiates these similarly situated persons is “clearly unreasonable and in conflict with the intentions of the drafters.”29 16. In the same vein, interpreting Article 1D in a way that would not cover those Palestinian refugees who are eligible for UNRWA’s protection or assistance would lead 25 Guy Goodwin Gill and Susan M. Akram, ‘Brief Amicus Curiae’, Palestine Yearbook of International Law, 2000/2001, Vol. XI, 185, at p. 236. See also, AD (Palestine), note 2 above, where the scope of Article 1D was found to encompass persons “who have not in fact availed themselves of protection and assistance which they are otherwise eligible to receive.” Para. 160 and see paragraphs 150-153 for a discussion of the difficulties of the “actually availed” approach. 26 See footnote 5. 27 This interpretation is distinct from the position taken by the CJEU in Bolbol, (note 2 above), where only those who had “actually availed” themselves of that protection or assistance were considered to fall within the first paragraph of Article 1D, based on a “clear reading” of Article 1D (para. 51). For the purposes of how this should be approached and reconciled as a matter of European law, UNHCR notes that Article 3 of the Qualification Directive provides that Member States may introduce or retain more favourable standards for determining who qualifies as a refugee. Member States are thus recommended to adopt the more favourable interpretation put forward by UNHCR, which is more in line with the object and purpose of Article 1D. 28 See UNHCR, Note on UNHCR's Interpretation of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and Article 12(1)(a) of the EU Qualification Directive in the context of Palestinian refugees seeking international protection, May 2013, http://www.refworld.org/docid/518cb8c84.html. 29 Brenda Goddard, ‘UNHCR and the International Protection of Palestinian Refugees’, (2009) 28 Refugee Survey Quarterly, 475 at 493. 7