Legal briefing on the rights of stateless Palestinians in the UK September 2025 Lebanese authorities. Thus, there existed at ‘least prima facie evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if expelled to Lebanon.’168 Article 3 ECHR was also considered by the ECtHR in HA v UK which concerned a stateless Palestinian who fled Lebanon after being injured in armed conflict and targeted for recruitment by rival factions in the Ein El-Hilweh refugee camp.169 The applicant had sought asylum in the UK in 2017, citing a fear of forced recruitment by paramilitary groups and indiscriminate violence in the camp from which there was no protection. Following a rejection of his application from the Home Office and unsuccessful appeals before the UK courts, the case was brought before the ECtHR, where the applicant argued that he faced a real risk of severe mistreatment by paramilitary groups if returned to the Ein El-Hilweh camp in Lebanon due to his refusal to join them. Further the applicant noted that neither UNRWA nor the Lebanese authorities would be able to provide protection from these risks. The Court dismissed evidence in relation to UNRWA’s inability to provide assistance and protection from the recruitment attempts as irrelevant, and focussed its assessment on whether the applicant faced a risk as a result of recruitment attempts. The Court held that, while there was evidence of recruitment of young Palestinians to paramilitary groups, the applicant had failed to establish that his refusal to be recruited would put him at risk of serious harm and ultimately held that his expulsion to Lebanon would not amount to a breach of Article 3 ECHR.170 The non-recognition by the ECtHR in HA v UK of the lack of protection and inconsistent provision of assistance by UNRWA in the Ein El-Hilweh refugee camp in Lebanon would seem to be incompatible with what has been objectively established, namely that UNRWA does not provide protection or assistance to Palestinians residing there. While the outcome of this judgment is regrettable, the Court’s assessment in this case focused solely on the lack of negative repercussions on the applicant for his refusal to join paramilitary groups. The Court did not explicitly rule on the question of whether UNRWA was capable of providing protection in this matter (as there was no persecution to provide protection from). Therefore, it remains open to practitioners in future cases to further litigate this point in other contexts and to potentially argue that the general conditions in which Palestinians are forced to live in certain camps or areas of operation amount, in and of themselves, to inhumane and degrading treatment based on UNRWA’s inability to provide assistance and its worsening funding crisis. Reference has been made to the risks facing Palestinians upon return to other areas of operation by domestic courts. For example, in 2024, the Dutch Council of State, ruled that, based on available country of origin information, ‘the State Secretary should have assumed that Gaza was facing a situation of indiscriminate violence of such a level as it can be assumed that every person who returns is at serious risk of serious harm by mere presence there’ and annulled a moratorium decision on applications from Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.171 168 Auad v Bulgaria (fn 166) paras 103, 108. ECtHR, H.A. v United Kingdom, application no. 30919/20 (5 December 2023). 170 ibid, paras 38, 58, 55-56. 171 The Netherlands, Council of State, case no. 202400561/1/V2 (24 April 2024). See also Germany, Administrative Court of Dresden, case no. 11 K 357/24.A (16 April 2024). 169 35