- Introduction
- Guidance note
- Common analysis
- 1. Actors of persecution or serious harm
-
2. Refugee status
- Preliminary remarks
-
Analysis of particular profiles
- 2.1. Members of the security forces and pro-government militias
- 2.2. Government officials, including judges, prosecutors and judicial staff; and those perceived as supporting the government
- 2.3. Individuals working for foreign military troops or perceived as supporting them
- 2.4. Religious leaders
- 2.5. Members of insurgent groups and civilians perceived as supporting them
- 2.6. Persons fearing forced recruitment by armed groups
- 2.7. Educational personnel
- 2.8. Humanitarian workers and healthcare professionals
- 2.9. Journalists, media workers and human rights defenders
- 2.10. Children
- 2.11. Women
- 2.12. Individuals perceived to have transgressed moral codes
- 2.13. Individuals perceived as ‘Westernised’
- 2.14. LGBTIQ persons
- 2.15. Persons living with disabilities and persons with severe medical issues
- 2.16. Individuals considered to have committed blasphemy and/or apostasy
- 2.17. Ethnic and religious minorities
- 2.18. Individuals involved in blood feuds and land disputes
- 2.19. Individuals accused of ordinary crimes
- 2.20. Individuals who were born in Iran or Pakistan and/or who lived there for a long period of time
-
3. Subsidiary protection
- 3.1. Article 15(a) QD
- 3.2. Article 15(b) QD
-
3.3. Article 15(c) QD
- 3.3.1. Preliminary remarks
- 3.3.2. Armed conflict (international or internal)
- 3.3.3. Qualification of a person as a ‘civilian’
- 3.3.4. Indiscriminate violence
- 3.3.5. Serious and individual threat
- 3.3.6. Qualification of the harm as ‘threat to (a civilian’s) life or person
- 3.3.7. Nexus/’by reason of’
- 4. Actors of protection
- 5. Internal protection alternative
- 6. Exclusion
- Abbreviations and glossary
- Country of origin information references
- Relevant case law
⚠ |
|
Please note that this country guidance document has been replaced by a more recent one. The latest versions of country guidance documents are available at https://easo.europa.eu/country-guidance. |
Neither the QD, nor the CJEU in its jurisprudence, have defined the terms ‘threat to (a civilian’s) life or person’.
The CJEU has held that Article 15(c) QD has an additional scope to Article 3 ECHR and, therefore, has to be interpreted independently, but with due regard to fundamental rights as they are guaranteed under the ECHR.[49]
By comparing the provisions of Article 15(a) and Article 15(b) QD, which indicate a particular type of harm, with the provision of Article 15(c) QD, the CJEU further concludes that the harm under the latter:
(...) covers a more general risk of harm. Reference is made, more generally, to a ‘threat … to a civilian’s life or person’ rather than to specific acts of violence. Furthermore, that threat is inherent in a general situation of ‘international or internal armed conflict’. [50]
Some of the commonly reported types of harm to civilians’ life or person in Afghanistan include killings, injuries, abductions, disabilities caused by landmines, etc.