asylum claims considered in accordance with the minimum standards contained within the Asylum Procedures Directive.244 These sources of law are, to a significant extent, incorporated245 or transposed into UK law.246 However, the analysis of the way in which the claims for asylum or complementary protection of stateless persons are considered has identified a number of concerns and, in particular, divergence from UNHCR’s interpretation of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention.247 That said, the quantitative analysis indicates that their claims for international refugee protection are significantly more likely to be successful than other asylum-seekers. This is because stateless persons are often subject to discrimination and human rights abuse in their countries of former habitual residence.248 5.3 Destitution (including access to employment, social assistance and housing) Of the 37 participants interviewed, 28 had experienced destitution. Of these, 11 participants had experienced rough sleeping or homelessness.249 Their testimony and the analysis of their case files raises a complex set of issues relating to the compatibility of their treatment with obligations under the 1954 Convention and international human rights law; in particular, obligations that aim to ensure access to employment, housing and social assistance. Further, the circumstances in which the destitution of stateless and “unreturnable” persons on the UK territory can constitute prohibited “inhuman and degrading treatment” are particularly important as this obligation is enforceable in domestic law.250 5.3.1 Entitlement to work The 1954 Convention provides qualified obligations in respect of the right to work which is an important right in avoiding destitution. Stateless persons who are “lawfully staying in the territory” are guaranteed “treatment as favourable as possible and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances” in respect of 244 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States, (hereafter “the Asylum Procedures Directive”). 245 See, for example, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, section 2 which provides that “[n]othing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention” and the Immigration Rules HC 395, Part 11. 246 Though see FA (Iraq) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2010] EWCA Civ 696, United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales), 18 June 2010, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/ refworld/docid/4c1f76b02.html para. 16 on the imperfect transposition of the Qualification Directive in UK law. 247 See Section 5.9.1. 248 See Section 3.4. 249 Participants 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 17, 18, 26, 28, 29 and 36. 250 Within the meaning of Article 7 ICCPR, the relevant part of which provides that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment” and, particularly, Article 3 ECHR, which provides “No one shall be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. in the United Kingdom 93