Country guidance : explained : general guidance and methodological remarks.
Date: 2025-03-05
Institutions: European Union Agency for Asylum
Subjects: aid to refugees, fundamental rights, human rights, humanitarian aid, international protection, private international law, refugee, return migration, right of asylum, user guide

Country Guidance:
explained

i

e
c
n
a
d
u
G
y
r
t
n
u
o
C

5
2
0
2
y
r
a
u
r
b
e
F

 
 
Country Guidance: explained 

General guidance and methodological remarks 

February 2025 

 
Manuscript completed in February 2025 

2nd edition 

Neither the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) nor any person acting on behalf of the 
EUAA is responsible for the use that might be made of the information contained within this 
publication. 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2025 

Print 

PDF 

ISBN978-92-9410-579-0  doi: 10.2847/9615935  BZ- 01-25-015-EN-Q 

ISBN978-92-9410-580-6  doi: 10.2847/3924390 BZ- 01-25-015-EN-N 

© European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), 2025 

Cover photo/illustration: Eoneren, ©iStock.com, 2019, url. 

Please cite as: EUAA, Country Guidance: explained, February 2025, available at 
https://euaa.europa.eu/country-guidance-explained-february-2025  

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. For any use or reproduction 
of photos or other material that is not under the EUAA copyright, permission must be sought 
directly from the copyright holders. 

2 

COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

Contents 

Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 3 

About country guidance ................................................................................................................ 5 

What is country guidance? ................................................................................................................ 5 

What is the role of country guidance? ........................................................................................... 6 

What is the scope of country guidance? ....................................................................................... 6 

What is the difference between the common analysis and the guidance note? ............... 8 

What is the general framework for country guidance? ............................................................. 9 

Legal framework ............................................................................................................... 9 

General guidance ............................................................................................................. 9 

What is the relationship between country of origin information and country guidance?

10 

How is country guidance developed? .......................................................................................... 11 

How are countries of origin selected? .......................................................................................... 11 

Using country guidance ................................................................................................................ 13 

Sequence of assessment ..............................................................................................13 

COI in country guidance documents .........................................................................14 

Reference period and relevance ................................................................................14 

Terminology notes ......................................................................................................... 15 

Chapters of the country guidance ............................................................................................... 16 

Introductory chapter.......................................................................................................................... 16 

Actors of persecution or serious harm ......................................................................................... 16 

Refugee status ..................................................................................................................................... 17 

Non-exhaustive list of commonly encountered profiles ....................................... 17 

Identifying the relevant profile ..................................................................................... 17 

Assessment of risk and qualification ........................................................................ 18 

Step-by-step approach ................................................................................................. 18 

Subsidiary protection ........................................................................................................................ 21 

Article 15(a) QD/QR: death penalty or execution ................................................... 21 

Article 15(b) QD/QR: torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or 
punishment in the country of origin ......................................................................... 22 

Article 15(c) QD/QR: indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict  22 

Actors of protection ........................................................................................................................... 34 

Internal protection alternative ....................................................................................................... 35 

3 

 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Exclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 38 

List of abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 39 

4 

 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

About country guidance 

What is country guidance? 

The country guidance documents provide country-specific common analysis and guidance in 
relation to the assessment criteria for qualification for international protection established in 
the recast Qualification Directive (QD)(1) and in the newly adopted Qualification Regulation 
(QR)(2), which will repeal the QD with its entry into application on 1 July 2026. They are 
developed by the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA, hereinafter also ‘the Agency’) 
together with a network of senior-level policy officials from EU+ countries and the documents 
represent their joint assessment of the situation in main countries of origin, in accordance with 
current EU legislation and jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). 
The European Commission and UNHCR also provide valuable input in this process. 

The aim of the country guidance documents is to assist asylum decision-makers 
and policy-makers in their daily work and to foster convergence in the assessment 
of applications for international protection and the type of protection granted in the 
context of the common European asylum system.  

The Agency’s work on country guidance was initiated in 2016, following the Outcome of the 
European Council meeting of 21 April 2021 (3). Under the current EUAA Regulation, the 
development, review and update of country guidance is regulated under Article 11 of the 
EUAA Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2021/2303) (4).  

From Article 11(1) EUAA Regulation 

To foster convergence in applying the assessment criteria established in Directive 
2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council [...], the Agency shall coordinate 
efforts among Member States to develop a common analysis on the situation in specific 
countries of origin (the ‘common analysis’) and guidance notes to assist Member States in the 
assessment of relevant applications for international protection. […] 

The common analysis in the country guidance documents builds on the common legal 
framework, the general EUAA guidance on qualification for international protection, and the 

(1)   Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the 
qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a 
uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection 
granted (recast). 

(2)   Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on standards for the 
qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a 
uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection 
granted, amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC and repealing Directive 2011/95/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council. 

(3)   Council of the European Union, Outcome of the 3461st Council Meeting, 21 April 2016, 8065/16. 
(4)   Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on the European 

Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010. 

5 

 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

relevant country of origin information (COI). It is a next step towards convergence in the 
national decision-making practices (see Figure 1).  

Figure 1. Country guidance as a next step towards convergence. 

Common analysis 
and guidance 

Country of origin 
information 

EUAA general 
guidance  

Common legal 
framework 

Country guidance is the joint assessment of the facts under the applicable law.  

It is an analysis of the available information concerning the situation in the relevant 
country, under the common legal framework and in light of the applicable standards 
in accordance with general EUAA guidance on qualification for international 
protection. On the basis of this analysis, the documents outline guidance to policy-
makers and decision-makers in the EU. 

What is the role of country guidance? 

In accordance with Article 11(3) of the EUAA Regulation, Member States have the obligation to 
take into account the common analysis and guidance notes when examining applications for 
international protection, without prejudice to their competence to decide on individual 
applications for international protection.  

See also Using country guidance. 

What is the scope of country guidance? 

The country guidance documents focus exclusively on applying the assessment criteria 
established in the recast Qualification Directive/Qualification Regulation. The different sections 

6 

 
 
 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

aim to support the examination of international protection needs in relation to refugee status 
and subsidiary protection.  

Refugee status 

Subsidiary protection 

‘refugee’ means a third-country national 
who, owing to a well-founded fear of being 
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, 
nationality, political opinion or membership 
of a particular social group, is outside the 
country of nationality and is unable or, 
owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail 
himself or herself of the protection of that 
country, or a stateless person, who, being 
outside of the country of former habitual 
residence for the same reasons as 
mentioned above, is unable or, owing to 
such fear, unwilling to return to it, and to 
whom Article 12 [exclusion] does not apply; 

‘person eligible for subsidiary protection’ 
means a third-country national or a stateless 
person who does not qualify as a refugee 
but in respect of whom substantial grounds 
have been shown for believing that the 
person concerned, if returned to his or her 
country of origin, or in the case of a 
stateless person, to his or her country of 
former habitual residence, would face a real 
risk of suffering serious harm as defined in 
Article 15, and to whom Article 17(1) and (2) 
[exclusion] does not apply, and is unable, or, 
owing to such risk, unwilling to avail himself 
or herself of the protection of that country;  

Article 2(d) QD/3(5) QR 

Article 2(f) QD/3(6) QR 

In order to be regarded as an act of 
persecution within the meaning of Article 
1(A) of the Geneva Convention, an act must: 

Serious harm consists of: 

(a)  the death penalty or execution; or 

(b)  torture or inhuman or degrading 
treatment or punishment of an 
applicant in the country of origin; or 

(c)  serious and individual threat to a 

civilian’s life or person by reason of 
indiscriminate violence in situations 
of international or internal armed 
conflict. 

Article 15 QD/QR 

(a)  be sufficiently serious by its nature 
or repetition as to constitute a 
severe violation of basic human 
rights, in particular the rights from 
which derogation cannot be made 
under Article 15(2) of the European 
Convention for the Protection of 
Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms; or 

(b)  be an accumulation of various 

measures, including violations of 
human rights which is sufficiently 
severe as to affect an individual in a 
similar manner as mentioned in point 
(a). 

Article 9(1) QD/QR 

The country guidance documents focus solely on the examination of international protection 
needs of applicants from a particular country of origin and reflect a common analysis of such 
needs by EU+ countries. Nothing in the country guidance documents should be construed as 
an expression of a political position of the European Commission or of the EUAA.   

National forms of protection or regulated stay, which go beyond the EU-regulated forms of 
international protection, are not included within the scope of the country guidance documents. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

The issue of return, regulated under the Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC) (5)  and 
Return Border Procedure Regulation (EU) 2024/1349(6) is outside of the scope of country 
guidance. This does not exclude that some elements of the common analysis may be 
informative in the context of an assessment whether a removal would potentially violate the 
principle of non-refoulement. 

What is the difference between the common analysis and 
the guidance note? 

The country guidance documents contain two parts: 

Guidance note  

The guidance note is the first 
part in the structure of the 
document. 

It outlines the key conclusions 
of the common analysis in a 
light user-friendly format. 

Common analysis 

The common analysis is the second, 
more detailed, part. It analyses the 
available COI and provides guidance in 
accordance with the applicable 
legislation, relevant jurisprudence and 
general guidance. 

The present Country Guidance: explained document should be seen as a third 
integral part of country guidance. It outlines the general guidance relied upon in the 
analysis, as well as the methodological framework, approach and indicators used to 
assess the different elements of qualification for international protection. 

(5)   Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common 

standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. 

(6)   Regulation (EU) 2024/1349 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a return 

border procedure, and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1148. 

8 

 
 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

What is the general framework for country guidance? 

Legal framework 

In terms of applicable legal framework, the country guidance documents are based on the 
provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention (7) and of the recast Qualification Directive/ 
Qualification Regulation, as well as on jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union (CJEU). The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is also taken 
into account where appropriate. 

General guidance 

The common country-specific analysis builds on the general EUAA guidance on qualification 
for international protection. The general guidance assists in the application of key legal 
concepts relating to the examination of applications for international protection, along with the 
respective country guidance documents. 

The following EUAA documents are of particular relevance: 

•  Practical guide: Qualification for international protection 

•  Practical Guide on Political Opinion 

•  Practical Guide on Interviewing Applicants with Religion-based Asylum Claims  

•  Guidance on membership of a particular social group 

•  Practical Guide on applicants with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, 

gender expressions and sex characteristics – Examination procedures 

•  Practical Guide on evidence and risk assessment 

•  Practical guide on the internal protection alternative 

•  Practical guide: Exclusion 

•  Practical Guide on Exclusion for Serious (Non-Political) Crimes 

•  Practical guide on the use of country of origin information by case officers for 

the examination of asylum applications 

Find these and other EUAA practical guides and tools at 
https://euaa.europa.eu/practical-tools-and-guides. 

(7) 

 United Nations General Assembly, 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol 
Relating to the Status of Refugees. 

9 

 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

In addition, when developing the country guidance assessment framework, the relevant 
judicial analyses published by the EUAA were taken into consideration. 

Find EUAA Professional Development Series at https://euaa.europa.eu/asylum-
knowledge/courts-and-tribunals.  

Relevant UNHCR guidance is also taken note of. This includes the country-specific guidelines 
published by the UNHCR as well as their general guidance on eligibility (8). 

What is the relationship between country of origin 
information and country guidance? 

The development of country guidance documents would not be possible without country of 
origin information (COI) reports. COI is the factual basis on which country guidance provides 
an assessment in the form of common analysis and guidance.  

In this regard, the EUAA, together with Member States and associated countries, produces 
COI for the purposes of the country guidance development and update.  

COI reports provide information on the situation in the country of origin according to terms of 
reference specifically designed to meet the information needs of the detailed country 
guidance assessment. COI is produced in accordance with the EUAA COI methodology and 
is based on a wide range of carefully assessed sources. 

Find information on the EUAA COI Methodology and relevant COI reports at 
https://euaa.europa.eu/country-origin-information.  

While the country guidance is fundamentally based on COI, it is not COI itself.  

The COI found within the common analysis is provided with two main objectives: 

to ensure transparency with regard to the factual basis of the assessment; 

to assist the reader by guiding them to the relevant COI for the examination of 

individual applications. 

See also COI in country guidance documents.  

(8)  UNHCR Handbook and guidelines on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status under the 1951 
Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, as well as other guidance, policy 
documents and UNHCR ExCom and Standing Committee conclusions are available at 
https://www.refworld.org/rsd.html.  

10 

 
  
 
 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

How is country guidance developed? 

The common analysis and guidance are developed as the result of the joint efforts of Member 
States’ and associated countries’ experts under the EUAA coordination. 

Processes have the span of several months and include the following elements (Figure 2).  

Figure 2. Elements in the country guidance development and update processes. 

Initial exchange 
of views, 
including 
current national 
practices/

guidance

Drafting

Review

Finalisation and 
publication

The main stakeholders in this process are the EU Member States and associated countries. 
Their representatives at senior policy level are nominated to the EUAA Country Guidance 
Network, in the context of which they take part in the development, review, and update of 
each country guidance document. Furthermore, national administrations nominate experts 
who support respective processes as part of dedicated drafting teams. Where relevant, 
national experts on exclusion are further consulted via the EUAA Exclusion Network. 

Each process includes several meetings at Country Guidance Network level and at Drafting 
Team level, as well as several written consultations. 

The European Commission and UNHCR also provide valuable input throughout the 
development, review and update of country guidance. 

The next steps of the process, which take place before a country guidance document is 
published, are outlined in the EUAA Regulation: 

Article 11(2) EUAA Regulation  

The Executive Director shall, after consulting the Commission, submit guidance notes to the 
Management Board for endorsement. Guidance notes shall be accompanied by the 
common analysis. 

How are countries of origin selected?  

Countries are selected by the EUAA Management Board, following suggestion by the Country 
Guidance Network and the planning is confirmed on an annual basis. On average, four 

11 

 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

processes are completed each year, resulting in the publication of new or updated country 
guidance documents. 

Elements such as the overall significance of the caseload in Member States and associated 
countries and the need to foster further convergence are key in this assessment and 
prioritisation. Recent trends and early warning findings are also taken into account. 

For more information on the development, review and update of country guidance, 
see ‘Country Guidance: Methodology’.  

12 

 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

Using country guidance 

In accordance with Article 11(3) of the EUAA Regulation, Member States have the following 
obligation: 

Article 11(3) EUAA Regulation  

Member States shall take into account the common analysis and guidance notes when 
examining applications for international protection, without prejudice to their competence to 
decide on individual applications for international protection. 

This may take different forms. 

Policy-level application 

Some determining authorities develop their national country-specific guidance. In these cases, 
Member States should take into account the common analysis and guidance notes during the 
review and update of such national country-specific guidance and the national policy-makers 
would be the primary users of the EUAA country guidance at national level.  

Additionally, specific instructions on the relation between the EUAA country guidance and the 
national guidance may be provided to decision-makers in order to further guide and facilitate 
their work. 

Case-level application  

The guidance note and common analysis aim to be as practical and as helpful as possible in 
order to directly assist caseworkers and decision-makers in the examination of individual 
applications for international protection. 

They are intended for such direct use, either on their own or complementarily to available 
national guidance. 

Applications for international protection should always be examined and decisions 
should always be taken ‘individually, objectively and impartially’ in accordance with 
Article 10(3)(a) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and reiterated by Article 
34(2) of the Asylum Procedure Regulation ‘objectively, impartially and on an 
individual basis’.  

Sequence of assessment 

The structure and scope of the country guidance documents follow the underlying logic of the 
examination of an application for international protection. Each country guidance document 
includes the following elements:  

13 

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Furthermore, an additional introductory chapter may be added to facilitate the reading of the 
documents. This chapter could include recent developments and/or general remarks which 
aim to further inform the reader and to facilitate their understanding of the common analysis 
and guidance note. 

The approach of the country guidance documents is fully consistent with the 
general sequence of the examination of international protection needs in 
accordance with the EUAA Practical guide: Qualification for international protection. 
The flowchart which accompanies the practical guide may be a handy tool to assist 
the reader and remind them of the sequence in the examination of individual 
applications for international protection. 

You can find more information about the content and methodological approach of the 
different chapters in the EUAA country guidance documents in Chapters of the country 
guidance. 

COI in country guidance documents 

The common analysis part of the country guidance documents includes COI references. Links 
to the relevant COI documents are also added, usually at the beginning of each section, for 
ease of reference.   

COI included in the country guidance documents highlights the key factual elements based on 
which the assessment is being developed, but the country guidance documents do not 
provide extensive information on the different topics. Therefore, the referenced COI reports 
and COI query responses should always be consulted for further information on the situation 
in the country of origin. 

Reference period and relevance 

Country guidance is time-sensitive and all common analysis and guidance notes are regularly 
reviewed and updated as needed. The regularity and timing of the updates depend on 
priorities identified by the Member States and associated countries as well as developments 
in the country of origin and how likely it is for certain aspects of the assessment to change 
based on new information. Developments in legislation and/or case law may also lead to an 
update of existing country guidance documents.  

The country guidance assessment is based on COI with a clearly indicated reference period. 
Each section of the country guidance documents also clearly states the timing of its last 
update. 

14 

COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

The guidance should be considered valid as long as current events and 
developments in the country are consistent with the trends and patterns described 
within the COI on which the assessment at hand is based. 

Terminology notes 

Every effort is made to ensure consistency within and across the different country guidance 
documents and the terminology used therein. Nevertheless, slightly different formulations may 
sometimes be used to express similar findings. The reader should bear in mind that where 
formulations differ slightly, this is not intended in a comparative manner and does not in itself 
imply a differentiation in the conclusion.  

Each conclusion should be read on its own and understood in the context of the specific topic, 
the relevant legal terminology used in the recast Qualification Directive/Qualification 
Regulation, as well as the factual basis for the respective assessment. 

Several formulations are used in the documents often and consistently. For example: 

 ‘in general’ or ‘generally’ 

‘In general’ is often used in the conclusions of different sections. ‘Generally’ may also be used 
with the same meaning. 

This formulation implies that the respective conclusion would apply to most identified relevant 
cases. However, it is not intended to cover each and every such case. An individual 
assessment is always required. 

For example, the formulation ‘well-founded fear of persecution would in general be 
substantiated’ is used within the risk analysis of certain profiles in relation to refugee status. It 
implies a high level of risk and individuals falling within the respective profile or sub-profile 
would usually be found to have a well-founded fear of persecution. However, this formulation 
does not imply that each and every individual within the profile would have such a fear. The 
granting of international protection is never ‘automatic’. 

 ‘risk-impacting circumstances’ 

The notion of ‘risk-impacting circumstances’ refers to additional factors concerning the 
personal situation of the applicant. These factors could, for example, impact the assessment of 
the level of risk and the finding whether well-founded fear would be substantiated in the case 
of a particular applicant.  

‘Risk-impacting’ is intended as a neutral formulation and the elements listed could either 
indicate a heightened risk, or a lower level of risk. The impact of the specific circumstances on 
the assessment should be read in light of the relevant COI as well as the combination of 
factors specific to the individual situation of the applicant.  

15 

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Chapters of the country guidance 

The country guidance documents consist of two parts: the guidance note and the common 
analysis. Each part mirror each other and include the following contents: 

Introductory chapter 
Actors of persecution or serious harm  
Refugee status 
Subsidiary protection 
Actors of protection 
Internal protection alternative 
Exclusion  

The content of the common analysis is more detailed and presents the basis for the 
assessment as well as its conclusions. The corresponding chapters in the guidance note only 
outline the conclusions.  

The explanations that follow refer primarily to the approach taken in the respective common 
analysis chapters. For more information on the difference between the common analysis and 
guidance note, see ‘What is the difference between the common analysis and the guidance 
note?’ in About country guidance.  

Introductory chapter 

The common analysis usually starts with an introductory chapter highlighting the overall 
situation and/or significant recent developments in the country of origin. The content of this 
chapter is often relevant for the appropriate understanding of the content of the common 
analysis and guidance note overall. 

Actors of persecution or serious harm  

This chapter relates in particular to Article 6 QD/QR. It focuses on the main actors in the 
respective country of origin and their areas of presence and control. It also provides a brief 
overview of human rights violations they have reportedly committed. 

Actors of persecution are a key element in the status determination process. Persecution or 
serious harm must always take the form of conduct on the part of a specific actor in 
accordance with Article 6 QD/QR. 

See also relevant CJEU jurisprudence: Mohamed M’Bodj v État belge, C-542/13, 
judgment of 18 December 2014 (M’Bodj), paras. 35-36, and  MP v Secretary of State 
for the Home Department, C-353/16, judgment of 24 April 2018 (MP), paras. 57, 59. 

This chapter may be relevant when examining the risk for the applicant in relation to the reach 
of the actor of persecution or serious harm. Similarly, if internal protection alternative (IPA) is 

16 

COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

considered in the individual case, the presence and reach of the actor of persecution in the 
respective area would be of particular importance in the assessment of its safety.  

In addition, the chapter may provide an indication as to the motivation of the respective actor 
when committing persecutory acts. This could be useful for the analysis with regard to the 
potential nexus to a reason for persecution. 

For general guidance on ‘Actors of persecution or serious harm’, see the respective 
section of the EUAA Practical guide: Qualification for international protection, p.35. 

See also ‘Initial indications for considering or not considering IPA’, p.14, and 
‘Assessment of the IPA criteria’,p.18, in the EUAA Practical guide on the internal 
protection alternative. 

Refugee status 

This chapter contains some general considerations for the examination of refugee status. 

The analysis is conducted in accordance with Article 9 QD/QR and Article 10 QD/QR and the 
general EUAA guidance on the topic. 

There are a few things to remember when reading the sections within this chapter. 

Non-exhaustive list of commonly encountered profiles 

The chapter provides analysis and guidance on the situation of profiles of applicants identified 
as commonly encountered in the caseload of EU Member States. The included profiles 
represent a non-exhaustive list and the fact that a certain profile is included in it or not is 
without prejudice to the determination of their protection needs. Furthermore, the order of 
listed profiles does not reflect any assessment of their risk of persecution. 

While the conclusions regarding the profiles could provide general guidance, the protection 
needs of each applicant should be examined individually. Furthermore, the conclusions may 
refer to sub-profiles at a differentiated risk and may include factors which could increase or 
decrease the risk of persecution. These aspects are to be taken into account in light of all 
circumstances in the individual case.  

Identifying the relevant profile 

The individual applicant could fall under more than one profile included in the common 
analysis and guidance. The protection needs associated with all such circumstances should 
be fully examined. 

In some cases, even if the applicant no longer belongs to a certain profile, they may still be 
targeted and have a well-founded fear of persecution related to their past belonging to such 
a profile. In the individual assessment, it may be relevant to take into account the time that 
has passed and whether the applicant had remained in the country of origin for a long period 
of time without encountering persecution. 

17 

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Family members, merely due to their relation to an individual with a certain profile, may be at 
risk of persecution in such a manner that could constitute the basis for refugee status. This is 
not always explicitly mentioned within the conclusions regarding the respective profile but 
should be fully examined in the individual cases of family members fearing persecution due to 
their connection to an individual falling within the respective profile. 

Assessment of risk and qualification 

The considerations under each profile should be viewed without prejudice to the credibility 
assessment of the applicant’s claims. The common analysis and guidance note deal solely 
with issues of risk analysis and qualification, assuming that the ‘credibility of the profile’ has 
been established.  

While the country guidance document is not intended to inform the credibility assessment, the 
COI, which has been used as a basis to provide its general assessment and guidance, may be 
a helpful reference to examine credibility. In this regard, the reader should access the COI 
documents linked from the respective common analysis sections. 

For general guidance on qualification as a refugee, see the sections ‘Refugee 
status: well founded fear of persecution’, p.16, and ‘Refugee status: reasons for 
persecution’, p.22, in the EUAA Practical guide: Qualification for international 
protection. 

•  See also the EUAA Practical Guide on Political Opinion, Guidance on membership of 
a particular social group, Practical Guide on Interviewing Applicants with Religion-
based Asylum Claims and Practical Guide on applicants with diverse sexual 
orientations, gender identities, gender expressions and sex characteristics – 
Examination Procedure.  

For general guidance on evidence assessment and credibility analysis, see the 
EUAA Practical Guide on Evidence and Risk Assessment and the EUAA Practical 
guide on the use of country of origin information by case officers for the 
examination of asylum applications. 

Step-by-step approach 

Country guidance documents follow a step-by-step approach with regard to the analysis 
whether the qualification criteria under refugee status are met. 

Each profile has a similar outline, including the following features: 

1.  Last update 

This is an indication when the analysis and guidance were last reviewed and updated, 
similarly to all other sections in the document. 

18 

 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

2.  Definition of scope 

Most profiles and some sub-profiles include a definition of scope. This indicates the 
type of individuals to whom the section applies, making note of potential limitations to 
the scope of the profile. This is meant to assist the reader in ascertaining whether the 
individual applicant whose claim they are examining would fall within the scope of the 
respective section. 

3.  COI references 

This indicates the sections of the EUAA COI reports and COI query responses on 
which the analysis has been based. Links to the relevant COI products are also 
included for ease of reference, further highlighting that Country Guidance should not 
be referred to as source of COI. 

4.  Background of the profile 

This includes some background information regarding the profile, setting the 
contextual basis for the analysis provided below.  

5.  Legal analysis 

Step 1: Do the reported acts qualify as persecution? 

This part provides examples of acts reported to be committed against individuals belonging to the 
profile as well as guidance on whether such acts would reach the level of persecution according 
to Article 9 QD/QR.  

The acts may amount to persecution when, due to their nature or repetitiveness, they reach the 
required threshold of severity (Article 9(1)(a) QD/QR).  

The assessment may also refer to the potential accumulation of various measures, including 
violations of human rights, which is sufficiently severe as to affect an individual in a similar manner 
as mentioned in point (a) (Article 9(1)(b) QD/QR). 

Step 2: What is the level of risk of persecution? 

This part assesses the level of risk, namely how likely it is for applicants within the profile to have a 
well-founded fear of persecution. Further guidance is provided with regard to the circumstances which 
should be taken into account in the individual assessment and how such circumstances would impact 
the risk. Relevant COI is also included to substantiate the assessment.  

In general, three main conclusions may be found in Country Guidance documents:  
1)  a well-founded fear of persecution would in general not be substantiated or would be 

substantiated only in exceptional cases; 

2)  risk-impacting circumstances pertaining to the individual applicant should be taken into 

account, some of which may place the applicant at particular risk;  
3)  a well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated. 

Note that an individual examination is required in all cases. For a better understanding of the 
different wording used in these conclusions, see Terminology notes. 

19 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Step 3: Is there a ground for persecution? 

This part provides guidance on whether, in case of established well-founded fear of persecution, 
this would be for a reason mentioned in the provision of Article 10 QD/QR, e.g. race, religion, 
nationality, particular social group, political opinion (nexus). More than one ground may apply to a 
given case, cumulatively or alternatively. Whichever ground is the most relevant would depend on 
the individual circumstances of the applicants. Accordingly, different conclusions on nexus may 
be found in Country Guidance documents, reflecting the pertinence of any given ground, namely: 
in general no nexus, persecution may be, is likely to be, or is highly likely to be for the respective 
reason(s).  

As above, the conclusions are not of absolute nature and are not intended to automatically lead to 
the granting of refugee status or not. An individual examination is required. 

If the threshold for well-founded fear of persecution is met for the applicant, but no nexus to a 
reason for persecution is substantiated, the examination should proceed to consider in the 
alternative the applicant’s eligibility to subsidiary protection. 

6.  Potential exclusion considerations 

For some profiles, or categories of individuals within them, exclusion considerations 
may be relevant. A reminder regarding exclusion considerations is hence included in 
sections identified as particularly relevant based on the available COI. These aim to 
alert and assist the reader by referring them to the dedicated chapter Exclusion.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

Subsidiary protection 

Article 10(2) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive 

When examining applications for international protection, the determining authority shall first 
determine whether the applicants qualify as refugees and, if not, determine whether the 
applicants are eligible for subsidiary protection. 

And  

Article 39(2) of the Asylum Procedure Regulation 

When examining an application on the merits, the determining authority shall take a decision 
on whether the applicant qualifies as a refugee and, if not, it shall determine whether the 
applicant is eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. 

This chapter addresses the EU-regulated status of subsidiary protection in accordance with 
Article 15 QD/QR.  

Please note that where refugee status is not granted, established personal 
circumstances (e.g. age, gender, professional and economic background, home 
area, potential vulnerabilities) are still to be taken into account in the assessment of 
subsidiary protection according to Article 15 QD/QR. 

Article 15(a) QD/QR: death penalty or execution 

Under the section Article 15(a) QD/QR, the analysis focuses on the factual circumstances 
surrounding the ‘death penalty or execution’ in the respective country of origin and the 
assessment of the applicability of Article 15(a) QD/QR in this regard. 

The death penalty is as such, and under any circumstances, considered as a serious harm 
under Article 15(a) QD/QR. The sentence does not need to have already been imposed. The 
mere existence of a real risk that on return a death penalty may be imposed on the applicant 
could be considered sufficient to substantiate the need of subsidiary protection. 

As the addition of the term ‘execution’ suggests, Article 15(a) QD/QR also encompasses the 
intentional killing of a person by non-State actors(9).  

For further general guidance on the application of Article 15(a) QD/QR, see the 
section ‘Death penalty or execution’, p.27, of the EUAA Practical guide: 
Qualification for international protection. 

(9)    CJEU, Judgment of 16 January 2024, WS v Intervyuirasht organ na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri 

Ministerskia savet, case C-621/21, Judgment of 16 January 2024. 

21 

 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Article 15(b) QD/QR: torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or 
punishment in the country of origin 

The section on Article 15(b) QD/QR looks into the risk of ‘torture or inhuman or degrading 
treatment or punishment’ in relation to particular circumstances in the respective country of 
origin. 

Depending on the country of origin, this chapter may address different aspects, providing 
conclusions as to whether the relevant circumstances may qualify under Article 15(b) QD/QR. 
Examples of topics include: 

•  arbitrary arrests, illegal detention, and prison conditions 
•  criminal violence  
•  healthcare 
•  socio-economic conditions 

Other elements may also be highlighted depending on their relevance in the context of the 
country of origin. 

In general, Article 15(b) QD/QR corresponds to Article 3 of the European Convention for the 
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The jurisprudence of the 
ECtHR, therefore, provides relevant guidance in order to assess whether a treatment may 
qualify under Article 15(b) QD/QR. An important difference with Article 3 ECHR, however, is the 
requirement that the harm is the result of the (intentional) conduct of an actor. See Actors 
of persecution or serious harm. 

For further general guidance on the application of Article 15(b) QD/QR, see the 
section ‘Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, p.28, of the 
EUAA Practical guide: Qualification for international protection. 

Article 15(c) QD/QR: indiscriminate violence in situations of armed 
conflict 

This section focuses on the application of the provision of Article 15(c) QD/QR. Under Article 
2(f) QD/ 3(6) QR in conjunction with Article 15(c) QD/QR, subsidiary protection is granted 
where ‘substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person would face a real 
risk of suffering serious harm’ defined as ‘serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or 
person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed 
conflict’.  

Each element of the provision is addressed in a separate subsection. 

22 

Figure 3. Elements in the assessment of Article 15(c) QD/QR. 

COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

All of these elements have to be fulfilled in order to grant subsidiary protection 
under Article 15(c) QD/QR. 

The analysis under this section builds on the most relevant European case law. Four 
judgments of the CJEU and one judgment of the ECtHR are particularly taken into account.  

CJEU, Diakité judgment (10) 

The judgment is of importance for the interpretation of relevant concepts, and, in particular, of 
‘internal armed conflict’.  

In Diakité, the CJEU concludes that the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’ under Article 15(c) 
QD must be given an interpretation, which is autonomous from international humanitarian law. 

[…] internal armed conflict exists, for the purposes of applying that provision, if a 
State’s armed forces confront one or more armed groups or if two or more armed 
groups confront each other. It is not necessary for that conflict to be categorised as 
‘armed conflict not of an international character’ under international humanitarian 
law; 

CJEU, Diakité, para.35 

In Diakité, the CJEU sets a low threshold to assess whether an armed conflict is taking place, 
noting that, 

(10) CJEU, judgment of 30 January 2014, Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux 

apatrides, C-285/12, (Diakité). 

23 

 
 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

[…] nor is it necessary to carry out, in addition to an appraisal of the level of violence 
present in the territory concerned, a separate assessment of the intensity of the 
armed confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the 
duration of the conflict. 

CJEU, Diakité, para.35 

CJEU, Elgafaji judgment (11) 

The judgment is of importance with regard to the appreciation of the degree of indiscriminate 
violence and in particular with regard to the application of the ‘sliding scale’. In this judgment, 
the CJEU further discusses the ‘serious harm’ under the provision of Article 15(c) QD in 
comparison to the other grounds for granting subsidiary protection and considers the relation 
between Article 15(c) QD and the ECHR, in particular Article 3 ECHR. 

See Indiscriminate violence. 

CJEU, X and Others judgment (12)  

The consideration of personal circumstances in the assessment of Article 15(c) QD was 
reaffirmed in a recent CJEU judgment:  

Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95 does indeed cover the exceptional situation in 
which the level of indiscriminate violence resulting from an international or internal 
armed conflict is such that there are substantial grounds for believing that a civilian, 
returned to the relevant country or region, would, solely on account of his or her 
presence on the territory of that country or region, face a real risk of being subject 
to a serious and individual threat to his or her life or person. 

However, […],  that provision may also cover other situations, in which the 
combination, first, of a level of indiscriminate violence lower than that characterising 
such an exceptional situation and, second, of factors specific to the applicant’s 
personal circumstances is such as to materialise the real risk of being subject to a 
serious and individual threat within the meaning of the said provision. 

CJEU, X and Others, paras.63 and 64 

(11)   CJEU, judgment of 17 February 2009, Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, C-465/07, Grand Chamber, 

(Elgafaji). 

(12)   CJEU, judgment of 9 November 2023, X and Others v  Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, C-125/22, 

Fourth Chamber, (X and Y). 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

CJEU, CF and DN judgment (13)  

The judgment is of particular importance for the interpretation of the concept of ‘serious and 
individual threat to a civilian’s life or person’ in the context of an international or internal armed 
conflict under Article 15(c) QD. The CJEU found that,  

In order to verify the level of the degree of indiscriminate violence of the armed 
conflict, for the purposes of determining whether there is a real risk of serious harm 
within the meaning of Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95, it is necessary to carry out a 
comprehensive assessment, both quantitative and qualitative in nature, of all 
relevant facts characterising that conflict, based on the collection of objective, 
reliable and up-to-date information including, in particular, the geographical scope 
of the situation of indiscriminate violence, the actual destination of the applicant in 
the event that he or she is returned to the relevant country or region, the intensity 
of the armed confrontations, the duration of the conflict, the level of organisation of 
the armed forces involved, the number of civilians killed, injured or displaced as a 
result of the fighting, and the nature of the methods or tactics of warfare employed 
by the parties to the conflict. 

CJEU, CF and DN, para.61(2) 

In addition, the ECtHR judgment in Sufi and Elmi was consulted when developing the 
indicators for the assessment of the level of indiscriminate violence. (14) 

The country guidance documents usually contain a detailed section on Article 15(c) QD/QR, in 
which all elements of the legal provision are addressed separately as outlined below.  

For further general guidance on the application of Article 15(c) QD/QR, see the 
section ‘Serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of 
indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict’, p.30, 
of the EUAA Practical guide: Qualification for international protection. 

 Armed conflict 

The analysis in this sub-section is based on the low threshold of the Diakité judgment.  

The assessment looks into whether there are confrontations between two or more 
armed groups taking place. 

While reference to reputable sources qualifying the conflicts in accordance with international 
humanitarian law may be made, it is with the understanding that most criteria for such 
qualification are not required to be met under Article 15(c) QD/QR. A source that is often used 
in this regard, either directly or through its use in the respective COI documents, is the Rule of 

(13)   CJEU, judgment of 10 June 2021, CF and DN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-901/19, Third Chamber, (CF 

(14) 

and DN). 
 ECtHR, judgment of 28 June 2011, Sufi and Elmi v United Kingdom, Applications nos. 8319/07 and 
11449/07, (Sufi and Elmi). See in particular, para. 241. 

25 

 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Law in Armed Conflicts project (RULAC) of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian 
Law and Human Rights online portal.  

Similarly, while their qualification according to international humanitarian law is sometimes 
mentioned, it is not necessary, for the purposes of Article 15(c) QD/QR analysis, to determine 
whether the armed conflict(s) taking place are international or non-international (internal) in 
character. 

The country guidance approach takes into account that an armed conflict may be limited to 
certain parts of the territory of a country. However, the assessment in this sub-section usually 
refrains from making a determination of the scope of armed conflicts in clear geographical 
terms. Instead, areas where an armed conflict may not be taking place or where armed conflict 
is taking place but the intensity of indiscriminate violence would be particularly low if any, 
would fall under the same conclusion that ‘in general, there is no real risk for a civilian to be 
personally affected within the meaning of Article 15(c) QD/QR’. 

 Civilian 

Being a civilian is a prerequisite in order to be able to benefit from protection under Article 
15(c) QD/QR. The purpose of the provision is to protect only those who are not taking part in 
the conflict. This includes the potential application of Article 15(c) QD/QR to former combatants 
who have genuinely and permanently renounced armed activity. 

Country-specific guidance usually provides a non-exhaustive list of profiles which may not 
qualify as civilians under Article 15(c) QD/QR. 

It should be noted that actively taking part in hostilities is not limited to openly carrying arms 
but could also include substantial logistical and/or administrative support to combatants. 

 Indiscriminate violence 

Indicators 

The common analysis regarding the degree of indiscriminate violence taking place 
in different regions in the respective country of origin combines quantitative and 
qualitative elements in a comprehensive holistic assessment.  

The assessment is usually made at a provincial, or governorate level. In some cases, where 
available information clearly justifies this, a separate assessment may be made at a district 
level or for particular cities, etc. In other cases, available information would justify adopting a 
wider regional or even country level approach.  

The indicators applied (see Figure 4 hereunder) were initially formulated in reference to the 
ECtHR judgment in Sufi and Elmi and were further developed and adapted in order to be 
applied as a general approach to assessing the element of ‘indiscriminate violence’, 
irrespective of the country of origin in question. The CJEU judgment in CF and DN was seen 
as a confirmation of the appropriateness of the selected approach. 

26 

Figure 4. Assessment of the level of indiscriminate violence. 

COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

None of the indicators above would be sufficient by itself to assess the level of indiscriminate 
violence and the risk it creates for the civilian population in a particular area. Therefore, a 
holistic approach is applied, taking into account all different elements.  

It should, furthermore, be noted that the COI used as a basis for this assessment cannot be 
considered a complete representation of the extent of indiscriminate violence and its impact 
on the life of civilians. The background of the conflict in a particular area could be important to 
understand local dynamics and security incidents trends. Concerns with regard to 
underreporting, especially pertinent to the quantitative indicators, are also often highlighted 
and should be taken into account.  

Table 1 below outlines the general approach to the different indicators. However, specifics of 
the available COI on these indicators are often necessary to take into account and would be 
highlighted in the respective country-specific common analysis. 

Table 1. Indicators of indiscriminate violence. 

Presence of 
actors in the 
conflict  

This indicator looks into the presence of different armed actors in the 
area. It takes into account whether the area is controlled by a specific 
actor and which that actor is, whether it is contested, which actors 
operate there and conduct attacks, etc. 

Nature of 
methods and 
tactics 

This indicator looks into the nature of violence used by the actors of 
persecution or serious harm e.g. airstrikes, clashes, use of improvised 
explosive devices (IEDs), complex attacks, etc.  

27 

 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Frequency of 
incidents 

Some methods and tactics used in an armed conflict are, by their 
nature, more indiscriminate than others and may create a more 
substantial risk for civilians in general. The assessment of the level of 
indiscriminate violence takes into account the types of security 
incidents reported in the area, including the methods used as well as 
where and how they occurred. 

The frequency of incidents is a useful indicator to assist in the 
assessment of the risk of indiscriminate violence. The number of 
reported security incidents related to the armed conflict is provided by 
the available COI documents and is, usually, also mentioned in the 
country guidance documents.  

In order to provide an indication of the relative intensity of the 
violence in the area, the number of security incidents is furthermore 
presented as a weekly average for the reference period of the country 
guidance document. 

Civilian casualties  The number of civilian casualties (including killed and injured civilians) 

is considered a key indicator when assessing the level of 
indiscriminate violence and the associated risk for civilians in the 
context of Article 15(c) QD/QR. 

Geographical 
scope 

Displacement 

The reported number of casualties is, usually, further weighted by the 
population of the respective area and presented as the approximate 
number of civilian casualties per 100 000 inhabitants. 

The reporting of civilian casualties in an armed conflict is often 
challenging. Requiring these data at a provincial level poses additional 
difficulties in terms of its comprehensiveness, comparability and 
reliability. For example, data may be limited to the reported number of 
civilian deaths and information on injured civilians may not be 
available. Or in other cases, data may be limited to the number of 
overall fatalities without differentiating between civilians and 
combatants. Such limitations are taken into account in the analysis. 

This indicator looks into how widespread the violence within each 
area is. The territories which are particularly affected by indiscriminate 
violence and/or the territories which are relatively less affected may 
be further noted in the assessment, based on relevant information.  

This indicator refers to conflict-induced displacement from the area in 
question. It is seen as an indication of the perception of the local 
population of the risks in the area. 

Under this indicator, where available, the assessment takes note of 
information about recent IDP movements from or to the area, 
including within the area itself. Information on IDP returns to the area 
may also be available. 

28 

 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

In addition to the indicators above, some examples of further impact of the armed conflicts on 
the life of civilians (e.g. infrastructure damage, obstacles to humanitarian aid and other 
disruptions to civilian life) are mentioned and taken into account in the assessment. 

The sources for the information under the different indicators are outlined within each country 
guidance document and more details on their methodology can be found in the respective 
COI reports. 

For more information on the specific data used for each production, please consult 
the relevant section of the specific country guidance document.  

Levels of indiscriminate violence 

The country guidance documents apply a consistent approach to the assessment of the level 
of indiscriminate violence, including color-coded categories of different levels of 
indiscriminate violence.  

Figure 5 below illustrates the further differentiated ‘sliding scale’ applied with regard to the 
different levels of indiscriminate violence and the degree of individual elements required in 
order to substantiate a real risk of serious harm under Article 15(c) QD. 

Figure 5. Levels of indiscriminate violence and individual circumstances in establishing real 
risk of serious harm under Article 15(c) QD. 

Real risk of 
serious harm 
under Article 
15(c) QD

individual elements

individual elements

indiscriminate 
violence

indiscriminate 
violence

indiscriminate 
violence

indiscriminate 
violence

In general, no real 
risk under Article 
15(c) QD

Depending on the level of indiscriminate violence taking place, the territories in a country are 
usually categorised as follows. 

29 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Territories where ‘mere presence’ would be considered sufficient in order to establish a 
real risk of serious harm under Article 15(c) QD/QR. 

Areas where the degree of indiscriminate violence reaches such an exceptionally high 
level that substantial grounds are shown for believing that a civilian, returned to the 
relevant area, would, solely on account of their presence there, face a real risk of 
being subject to the serious threat referred to in Article 15(c) QD/QR. 

Accordingly, additional individual elements are not required in order to substantiate 
subsidiary protection needs under Article 15(c) QD/QR.  

Territories where a real risk of serious harm under Article 15(c) QD/QR may be 
established if the applicant is specifically affected by reason of factors particular to their 
personal circumstances, following a ‘sliding scale’ approach. 

Areas where ’mere presence’ would not be sufficient to establish a real risk of serious 
harm under Article 15(c) QD/QR, but where, however, indiscriminate violence reaches a 
high level.  

Accordingly, a lower level of individual elements is required to show substantial 
grounds for believing that a civilian, returned to the area, would face a real risk of 
serious harm in the meaning of Article 15(c) QD/QR. 

Areas where indiscriminate violence is taking place, however not at a high level. 

Accordingly, a higher level of individual elements is required in order to show 
substantial grounds for believing that a civilian, returned to the area, would face a real 
risk of serious harm in the meaning of Article 15(c) QD/QR. 

Lastly, there are territories with regard to which Article 15(c) QD/QR would in general 
not be applicable. 

Areas where, in general, there is no real risk for a civilian to be personally affected 
within the meaning of Article 15(c) QD/QR.  

This may be because the criteria for an armed conflict within the meaning of this 
provision are not met, because no indiscriminate violence is taking place, or because 
the level of indiscriminate violence is so low, that in general there would be no real risk 
for a civilian to be affected by it. 

 Serious and individual threat 

As mentioned above, even if refugee status is not granted, established personal 
circumstances are yet to be taken into account in the examination of subsidiary protection.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

This section presents a general framework regarding the individual circumstances which may 
be relevant to consider in the assessment of a serious and individual threat in territories where 
the ‘mere presence’ threshold is not reached.  

Certain personal circumstances could contribute to an enhanced risk of being subjected to 
indiscriminate violence, including its direct and indirect consequences.  

It is important to differentiate these individual circumstances from the individual circumstances 
taken into account at other stages in the analysis:

Different 
from 
refugee 
status

It is important to 
differentiate these 
individual 
circumstances from the 
individual 
circumstances which 
would result in the 
deliberate targeting of 
the applicant, whether 
as an individual or as a 
part of a group defined 
by one of the grounds 
under the refugee 
definition.

Different 
from IPA

The assessment 
should also be 
distinguished from the 
assessment under 
internal protection 
alternative, with regard 
to the reasonableness 
for the applicant to 
settle in a different 
location than their 
home area.

In the context of the ‘sliding scale’, each case should be assessed individually, taking into 
account the nature and intensity of the violence in the area, along with the combination of 
personal circumstances present in the applicant’s case. It is not feasible to provide exhaustive 
guidance about what the relevant personal circumstances could be and how those should be 
assessed.  

Some examples of personal circumstances that could affect the level of risk under Article 15(c) 
QD/QR, depending on the specificities of each country of origin, may include:  

•  Age: when assessing the risk of indiscriminate violence, this personal circumstance may 
be of particular importance in relation to the ability of the person to assess the risks. 
Children may not be in a position to quickly assess and avoid risks related to a volatile 
security situation or associated risks, such as those of unexploded remnants of war. In 
some cases, elderly age may also impact the person’s ability to assess and avoid risks 
associated with an armed conflict. 

•  Gender: when assessing the applicability of Article 15(c) QD/QR, the respective role of 

men and women in society and the perceptions of it may expose them to a 
differentiated level of risk and should be assessed accordingly. Their vulnerability to 
armed confrontations and targeted attacks may also differ.  

•  Health condition and disabilities, including mental health issues: serious illnesses and 
disabilities may result in restricted mobility for a person, making it difficult for them to 
avoid immediate risks and, in the case of mental illnesses, it can make them less 
capable of assessing risks. In other cases, such conditions may require frequent visits to 
a healthcare facility. Depending on the road security and the potential targeting of 

31 

 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

healthcare facilities, the latter may have additional implications related to the 
assessment of the risk under Article 15(c) QD/QR.  

•  Occupation and/or place of residence: the occupation and/or place of residence the 
person is likely to have when they return to their home area may also be relevant to 
assess the risk under Article 15(c) QD/QR. It may, for example, be linked to the need for 
the applicant to travel through areas where road incidents are often reported, or to 
frequent locations known to be particularly targeted in the conflict. 

•  Economic situation: applicants in a particularly dire economic situation may be less 

able to avoid the risks associated with indiscriminate violence. They may be forced to 
expose themselves to risks such as working in areas which are affected by violence in 
order to meet their basic needs. They may also have less resources to avoid an 
imminent threat by relocating to a different area. 

•  Knowledge of the area: when assessing the risk of indiscriminate violence under 
Article 15(c) QD/QR, the relevant knowledge of the area concerns the patterns of 
violence it is affected by. Different elements may contribute to a person’s knowledge of 
the area. It can relate to their experience in the area or in areas similarly affected by 
indiscriminate violence. For example, being born or having lived for many years outside 
the country can impact the applicant’s ability to assess the risks in the home area. 

•  Family members or support network: the lack of family members or a support network 
could affect the applicant’s economic situation and place of residence/occupation and 
may also prevent them from being informed on risks relevant to the indiscriminate 
violence in a situation of an armed conflict. 

In country-specific guidance, further elaboration on how specific individual circumstances may 
affect the level of risk in the context of Article 15(c) QD/QR, depending also on the nature and 
intensity of violence, may also be provided.  

 Life or person 

Country-specific guidance may provide examples of the commonly reported types of harm to 
civilian’s life or person.  

 Nexus (by reason of) 

The interpretation of the causation ‘by reason of’ may not be limited to harm which is directly 
caused by the indiscriminate violence or by acts that emanate from the actors in the conflict. 
To a certain extent, it may also include the indirect effect of indiscriminate violence in 
situations of armed conflict. As long as there is a demonstrable link to the indiscriminate 
violence, such elements may be taken into account in the assessments, for example: 
destruction of the necessary means to survive, destruction of infrastructure, criminality. 

For further general guidance on Article 15(c) QD/QR, see the section ‘Serious and 
individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence 
in situations of international or internal armed conflict’, p.30, of the EUAA Practical 
guide: Qualification for international protection. 

32 

COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

Please note that in areas where it would be generally considered that a civilian 
would not be affected by indiscriminate violence within the meaning of Article 15(c) 
QD/QR, this does not imply that these areas are considered safe areas for any 
applicant. All circumstances specific to the applicant’s individual case have to be 
thoroughly assessed. 

33 

 
 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Actors of protection 

This chapter analyses the provision of Article 7 QD/QR and examines the requirements for the 
assessment of actors of protection in the respective country of origin.  

Article 7 of the recast Qualification Directive and of the Qualification Regulation 

1. Protection against persecution or serious harm can only be provided by: 

(a) the State; or 

(b) parties or organisations, including international organisations, controlling the State or a 
substantial part of the territory of the State; 

provided they are willing and able to offer protection in accordance with paragraph 2. 

2. Protection against persecution or serious harm must be effective and of a non-temporary 
nature. Such protection is generally provided when the actors mentioned under points (a) 
and (b) of paragraph 1 take reasonable steps to prevent the persecution or suffering of 
serious harm, inter alia, by operating an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution 
and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm, and when the applicant has 
access to such protection. 

3. When assessing whether an international organisation controls a State or a substantial part 
of its territory and provides protection as described in paragraph 2, Member States shall take 
into account any guidance which may be provided in relevant Union acts. 

In order for State or non-State actors to be considered as actors of protection, they must 
control the entire territory or at least a substantial part of it and be willing and able to provide 
protection to the applicant. Furthermore, the protection in the country of origin has to meet 
three cumulative conditions. It has to be:  

effective

non-
temporary

accessible to 
the applicant

This chapter offers an analysis regarding the three cumulative conditions. It addresses the 
capacity and responsiveness of the law enforcement system as well as the capacity and 
independence of the judiciary. It also refers to possible reported discriminatory practices with 
regard to the accessibility of protection. 

The assessment concludes whether or not the State or other relevant parties or organisations 
qualify as actors of protection meeting the requirements of Article 7 QD/QR.  

In general, four main conclusions may be found in Country Guidance documents:  

1) protection is, in general, considered available; 

2) in individual cases the State or other relevant parties or organisations may be unwilling or 
unable to provide protection;  

34 

 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

3) the availability of the State or other relevant parties or organisations to provide protection is 
considered limited, but may in individual cases be available; 

4) protection is, in general, not considered available.  

Where the conclusion refers to individual cases, country guidance also strives to highlight the 
profiles for which protection may be considered available or unavailable. In some cases, 
conclusions may be more nuanced depending, for example, on geographical scope. 

For further general guidance on the topic, see the section ‘Protection in the country 
of origin’, p.36, of the EUAA Practical guide: Qualification for international 
protection. 

Internal protection alternative  

This chapter analyses the situation in specific areas in the countries of origin in relation to the 
requirements of Article 8 QD/QR.  

Article 8 of the recast Qualification Directive 

1. As part of the assessment of the application for international protection, Member States 
may determine that an applicant is not in need of international protection if in a part of the 
country of origin, he or she: 

(a) has no well-founded fear of being persecuted or is not at real risk of suffering serious 
harm; or 

(b) has access to protection against persecution or serious harm as defined in Article 7; 

and he or she can safely and legally travel to and gain admittance to that part of the country 
and can reasonably be expected to settle there. 

2. In examining whether an applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted or is at 
real risk of suffering serious harm, or has access to protection against persecution or serious 
harm in a part of the country of origin in accordance with paragraph 1, Member States shall at 
the time of taking the decision on the application have regard to the general circumstances 
prevailing in that part of the country and to the personal circumstances of the applicant in 
accordance with Article 4. To that end, Member States shall ensure that precise and up-to-
date information is obtained from relevant sources, such as the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees and the European Asylum Support Office. 

With the entry into force of the Qualification Regulation, the assessment of IPA will become 
obligatory, according to Article 8 QR.  

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, see Figure 6.  

35 

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Figure 6. IPA criteria. 

Internal protection 
alternative

This part of the country is 
safe for the applicant.

The applicant has access 
to this part of the country.

The applicant can 
reasonably be expected 
to settle there.

The analysis and conclusions with regard to the three criteria are provided in the country 
guidance documents in a step-by-step approach. 

1.  Part of the country 

The analysis under IPA cannot be provided in abstract terms.  

As a first step, the country guidance documents usually identify a specific part of the country 
against which the criteria of Article 8 QD/QR are examined. The focus on a specific area in the 
analysis does not prevent the caseworker from considering the application of IPA for other 
parts of the country, which may be more relevant to the specific applicant. 

2.  Safety 

Country guidance documents then proceed with the examination of the criterion of safety 
where considerations in relation to the following elements are usually elaborated on: 

•  general security situation; 
•  actor of persecution or serious harm and their reach, including whether the profile of 

the applicant is considered a priority target; 

•  other risk-enhancing circumstances. 

3.  Travel and admittance 

The travel and admittance sub-section provides assessment with regard to the following 
elements. 

36 

 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

Legally travel 
There should be no legal 
obstacles that prevent the 
applicant from travelling to 
the safe area. 

Gain admittance 
The applicant should be 
allowed to access the safe 
area by the actor(s) who 
control it. 

Safely travel 
There should be a safe 
route, which the applicant 
can practically travel through 
without undue difficulty, so 
that they can access the 
area of IPA without serious 
risks. 

4.  Reasonableness to settle 

The reasonableness requirement is also analysed with regard to both the general situation 
pertaining to the specific part of the country and relevant individual circumstances.  

Figure 7. IPA: assessment of the reasonableness requirement. 

General situation

Individual circumstances

Food security

Availability of basic infrastructure and services:

shelter and housing

• 
•  basic healthcare
•  hygiene, including water and sanitation

Availability of basic subsistence, such as through 
employment, existing financial means, support by a 
network, etc.

The conclusions with regard to the reasonableness to settle in a particular area may be 
provided in general terms or taking into account relevant individual circumstances such as 
age, gender, health status, family status, the availability of support network, etc. 

For general guidance on the application of IPA, see the EUAA Practical guide on 
the application of the internal protection alternative. 

37 

 
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Exclusion  

This chapter looks into the potential applicability of the exclusion grounds under Article 12(2) 
QD/QR and Article 17(1) QD/QR. 

Grounds for exclusion 
Refugee 
status 

•   a crime against peace, a 
war crime, or a crime 
against humanity 
•   a serious non-political 

crime outside the country 
of refuge prior to their 
admission as a refugee 

•   acts contrary to the 

principles and purposes of 
the United Nations 

Subsidiary 
protection 

•   a crime against peace, a war 
crime, or a crime against 
humanity 

•   a serious crime 

•   acts contrary to the principles 
and purposes of the United 
Nations 

•   constituting a danger to the 
community or to the security 
of the Member State in which 
the applicant is present 
•   other crime(s) (under certain 

circumstances) 

The analysis highlights the relevant factual circumstances prevailing in the country of origin 
which might require consideration of the potential applicability of exclusion grounds. 
Conclusions and guidance concerning the application of the different exclusion grounds to 
these circumstances are also included in the document.  

The analysis and guidance in this chapter do not aim to be exhaustive, but rather to act as a 
reminder for caseworkers to consider the potential applicability of exclusion grounds in 
relevant cases. 

For general guidance on exclusion, see the EUAA Practical Guide: Exclusion. 

For general guidance on the application of the exclusion ground ‘serious (non 
political) crime’, see the EUAA Practical Guide on Exclusion for Serious (Non-
Political) Crimes. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COUNTRY GUIDANCE: EXPLAINED 

List of abbreviations 

Term 

CJEU 

COI 

ECHR 

ECtHR 

EU 

Definition 

Court of Justice of the European Union 

country of origin information 

European Convention on Human Rights 

European Court of Human Rights 

European Union 

EU+ countries  

Member States of the European Union and associated countries. 

EUAA 

IPA 

European Union Agency for Asylum 

Internal protection alternative 

Member States 

Member States of the European Union 

QD  

(recast Qualification 
directive) 

Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of 
third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of 
international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for 
persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of 
the protection granted (recast) 

QR 

(Qualification 
Regulation) 

Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 14 May 2024 on standards for the qualification of third-
country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of 
international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for 
persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of 
the protection granted, amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC 
and repealing Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament 
and of the Council 

39 

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 

Term 

Definition 

UNHCR  

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

40 

 
doi: 10.2847/3924390