AUAD v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 3 (see paragraph 29 below). The reasons for the decision described the applicant’s story, as related by him, and continued: “Bearing in mind the situation in the Palestinian [refugee] camp [Ain al-Hilweh],which is characterised by serious armed clashes between ‘Fatah’ and militants from ‘Jund al-Sham’, there are grounds to grant the applicant humanitarian protection, due to the real risk of infringements consisting of personal threats against his life in a situation of internecine armed conflict. Refugee camps in Lebanon have their own system of governance. Camp administrations are not elected by popular vote, but reflect the predominance of one or more groups or formations that constantly vie for territorial control, which often leads to armed clashes. In an interview for the news agency IRIN of April 2008, the head of security of ‘Fatah’ in Lebanon colonel Maqdah said that ‘Fatah’ will take care of security in all Palestinian camps in order to put an end to the spread of radical groups. ... The applicant states that he has been a member of ‘Fatah’ since 2006, but there are no acts of persecution against him by the authorities or by another political organisation that the State is unable to oppose. He does not point to any of the other relevant grounds under section 8(1) of the Asylum and Refugees Act justifying fear of persecution, such as race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion or belief. That leads to the conclusion that there are no grounds to grant asylum under the Asylum and Refugees Act [of 2002]. The [applicant] does not raise grounds justifying the application of section 9(1)(1) or (1)(2) of [the Act]. The evidence in the file points to grounds to grant humanitarian protection. There are indications of circumstances falling within the ambit of section 9(1)(3) of [the Act]. The above-mentioned circumstances show that there are grounds to take into account [the applicant]’s personal situation in connection with the general social and political situation in the Palestinian camps in Lebanon. The evidence gathered during the proceedings shows that there is a real danger and risk of encroachments upon [the applicant’s] life and person. Under section 75(2) of the [Act], the [applicant]’s assertions, set out in detail in the record drawn up by the interviewing official, must be presumed to be truthful. ... As required by section 58(7) of [the Act], the State National Security Agency was invited to make written comments. Those comments, dated 21 August 2009, contain no objection to granting the [applicant] protection in the Republic of Bulgaria.” 12. The applicant did not seek judicial review of the refusal to grant him refugee status. 13. During that time he was settled, together with other Palestinians, in a housing facility operated by the State Refugees Agency. B. The order for the applicant’s expulsion and his ensuing detention 14. On 17 November 2009 an agent of the State Agency for National Security proposed to expel the applicant on national security grounds and to