COMMON ANALYSIS
Last update: January 2023
In order to determine that internal protection is available in a particular part of the applicant’s country of origin, three cumulative criteria have to be met: ‘safety’, ‘travel and admittance’ and ‘reasonableness to settle’.
Figure 5. IPA: elements of the assessment.
Safety
The Taliban were reported to be in control of all the country’s 34 provinces [Security 2022, 2.1, p. 36]. Since the takeover, there have been reports of excessive use of force by the de facto authorities, including different forms of torture and ill-treatment and extrajudicial killings, [Targeting 2022, 1.1.4 f, p. 32; 1.1.4 g, pp. 34-35]. Several profiles addressed in this common analysis are also subjected to persecution or serious harm by the Taliban as an actor. Moreover, for these and other profiles, the Taliban do not qualify as an actor who is able to provide effective, non-temporary and accessible protection, see 5. Actors of protection.
Therefore, the safety criterion would in general not be met. In exceptional cases, such as when the well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of serious harm is linked to a local or private actor who would not have the capacity to trace and target the applicant in the area of relocation, the safety criterion may be satisfied.
Travel and admittance
There are currently no known restrictions on travel and admittance within Afghanistan for men. The decline in armed conflict in the country following the Taliban takeover has generally led to better accessibility within the country for Afghans, with intercity travel’ largely unimpeded. The Taliban limited access to areas where conflict was concentrated. Taliban checkpoints ‘in and around Afghan cities and towns’ were also reported. An increase in Taliban checkpoints in Panjshir province as well as on Taliban checkpoints set up at the Afghanistan-Iran border in order to identify former soldiers and NRF affiliates were reported in July 2022, after clashes reportedly intensified in Afghanistan’s north [KSEI 2022, 10.1, pp. 68-70].
Women’s ability to travel on their own in Afghanistan was already constrained by social and formal restrictions and often their freedom of movement was limited by the requirement of male consent or male chaperone. Following the takeover, the Taliban announced further restrictions on travel for women which may affect women’s ability to safely and legally travel within Afghanistan. In particular, the MPVPV issued a guidance according to which women are not allowed to travel more than 72 kilometres if unaccompanied by a close male relative. This guidance also instructed taxi drivers to only transport female passengers who were respecting the Islamic dress code (wearing a hijab). Checkpoints were reportedly established in Kabul to ensure that these orders were properly followed, with women travelling alone being stopped and taxi drivers who transported them being punished [Targeting 2022, 5.2.3, p. 112].
The existence of Taliban checkpoints in and around cities would impact the safety of travel for profiles targeted by the Taliban. In addition, the restrictions posed on women’s freedom of movement may result in the requirements of safety and legality of travel not being met, in particular for single women. For other individuals, the travel and admittance requirement is likely to be satisfied.
Reasonableness to settle
After the Taliban takeover, Afghanistan’s aid-dependent economy was in ‘free fall’, with public services and the banking system collapsing. According to the UNOCHA’s January 2022 Humanitarian Needs Overview, it was estimated that in 2022, 24.4 million people would be in need in Afghanistan, while the Afghan healthcare system was reported to be on the brink of failure [KSEI 2022, 1.1, pp. 14-16].
The dire humanitarian situation in the country has a significant impact on all elements considered under the requirement of reasonableness to settle in a different part of the country, including food security, housing and shelter, basic healthcare, and means of basic subsistence. Therefore, the reasonableness to settle criterion would generally not be met.
Conclusion
Taking into account the assessment with regard to the three criteria under Article 8 QD, it is found that IPA would in general not be applicable to any part of Afghanistan.