AUAD v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 19 perpetually competing for influence and power, which resulted in frequent clashes. Palestinian militant groups continued to capitalise on the lack of government control within the camps. Some of those groups, such as Usbat al-Ansar and Jund al-Sham, had been able to find safe haven within the camps, most notably in Ain al-Hilweh. In March 2008 heavy clashes had erupted in the camp between Jund al-Sham militants and fighters of Fatah. They had exchanged rocket fire for four hours until a ceasefire had been agreed following mediation by another Islamist group. A Fatah leader had said at least four people had been wounded in the clashes. The Jund al-Sham fighters would leave the camp and Fatah security agents would take control. The Lebanese army had blocked the entrance to the camp while allowing civilians to leave. A Palestinian official had said that the militants of Jund al-Sham had been angered by Fatah’s seizure of a commander of the group and his handover to the Lebanese army. The captive had been suspected of links to militant groups outside Lebanon. On 15 September 2008 a Jund al-Sham member had been killed in further clashes between the group and Fatah. Reports had said the Lebanese army had taken up positions at the entrance of the camp just metres away from the fighting. 61. On the basis of that information, the OGN concluded the following: “In assessing any risk from the Lebanese authorities to those who claim to have been a member of an armed Palestinian group, the type of group and level of involvement will need to be considered. Consideration should also be given to the reasons for leaving a refugee camp and how the claimant was able to avoid the authorities when leaving Lebanon. In general, the Lebanese authorities do not enter Palestinian camps. Palestinian groups operate autonomously in refugee camps and in the majority of cases would be able to offer the protection needed from within these camps. Claimants who have not been directly involved in criminal or militant acts and who support more moderate groups, such as Fatah, are unlikely to have come to the attention of or be of interest to the Lebanese authorities. A grant of asylum or Humanitarian Protection would not usually be appropriate in such cases. However, if it is accepted that the claimant has been involved in armed groups of particular interest to the Lebanese authorities, such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, Asbat Al-Ansar/Al Nur and Jund al-Sham, or can otherwise demonstrate adverse interest and inability to access protection, it may be appropriate to grant asylum. Case owners should note that members of armed Palestinian groups have been responsible for numerous serious human rights abuses. If it is accepted that a claimant was an active operational member or combatant of an armed Palestinian group and the evidence suggests he/she has been involved in such actions, then case owners should consider whether one of the Exclusion clauses is applicable. Case owners should refer such cases to a Senior Caseworker in the first instance.” 62. With regard to claims based on fear of Islamic Palestinian Groups in the Ain al-Hilweh, such as Usbat al-Ansar, Jund al-Sham, or the Fatah Revolutionary Council (also known as Abu Nidal Organisation), the OGN observed that although Fatah’s control was weak, claimants could seek their