valid passport and had made no effort to return to the West Bank. The plaintiff had caused the inability to return to the West Bank due to his long absence. Case 5 A 1656/10 As In June 2013, the Administrative Court of Schwerin issued a decision regarding the case of a Palestinian born in Jerusalem. He entered Germany in January 2010 and applied for asylum. The plaintiff was working as a lawyer in Bethlehem and was a member of a Palestinian commission which agitated against the Israeli government’s wall construction. Many of their members were persecuted, detained and even killed by Israelis. In October 2009, Israeli agents searched his family house, interrogated his brothers and asked about his whereabouts. On the following day, he was called by an Israeli Captain who told him to stop his actions. On another night, the Israeli Military searched his chambers, took files and his computer and destroyed his monitor. After that, he stopped working as a lawyer, but in November, his family house caught fire and burned for unknown reasons. The Israeli army took his brother and gave his mother a certificate stating that he needed to contact the army. Two weeks later, the army invaded the Al-Daheisha camp where he was hiding at a friend’s place. He fled and stayed in hiding in different places until he could leave Israel. The Court ruled that his claim was substantiated and that he was persecuted by Israeli authorities on political grounds. The Court made clear that it did not matter that he was persecuted by Israel rather than Palestine due to the fact that Israel exercised public authority and that Palestinian authorities were not able to ensure protection. The Court granted refugee status under Section 3 of the Asylum Procedure Act in accordance with Section 60 (1) of the Residence Act and stated that refugee status could not be excluded under Section 3 (3) of the Asylum Procedure Act, which refers to Article 1D of the Geneva Convention on Refugees, because the protection or assistance of UNRWA ceased to exist. Case 34 K 172.11 A This case, decided by the Administrative Court of Berlin on 24 February 2014, concerned a Palestinian from Lebanon who was born in the refugee camp Ein ElHilweh. He entered Germany in February 2010 and applied for asylum. In his claim, he argued that he was persecuted by several radical organizations and that he and his family belonged to Fatah. Several attempts on his and his family lives occurred – the last one in October 2009. He was also detained several times in a barrack by the Lebanese military when he wanted to leave the camp. In its decision, the Court ruled that the plaintiff’s arguments that he would be persecuted if he returned to Lebanon were not substantiated. The Court took the view that even if his claim was true, since December 2010, the security situation in the camp had relaxed. Furthermore, the Court believed that the attacks targeted his father, who had a special position at Fatah, rather than the plaintiff. Moreover, the Court decided that the plaintiff could have gone to another refugee camp to escape from the attacks by these organizations. Survey of Protection at the National Level 139