News

On 14 April 2026, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) promulgated its country guidance judgment in AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI)Iraq CG UKUT 00150 (IAC), replacing all previous Iraq country guidance, including SMO & KSP. The decision provides updated binding guidance on returns via the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI), identity documentation, internal travel and Article 3 ECHR risk.

The case concerned three Iraqi nationals of Kurdish ethnicity from the Disputed Territories, who were challenging their removal from the UK to Iraq on the basis that they lacked the identity documents needed to return and travel safely and therefore would face a real risk of ill-treatment upon return.

The Tribunal held that despite there continues to be an internal armed conflict in parts of Iraq, the level of indiscriminate violence does not reach the threshold to constitute serious harm under Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, and that the general living conditions in Iraq do not in itself reach the threshold of Article 3 ECHR.

Regarding the Iraqi identity documentation system, the Tribunal held that the Civil Status Identity Document (CSID) is no longer issued and has been replaced by the biometric Iraqi National Identity Document (INID), and that, in principle, an INID is necessary in order to live and travel within Iraq without encountering treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

In relation to return, the Tribunal confirmed that Iraqi nationals may in principle be returned to Erbil or Sulaymaniyah, including former residents of the Disputed Territories, and that individuals lacking CSID or INID documentation may receive a temporary airport letter to facilitate onward travel for re-documentation. It held that the real risk under Article 3 ECHR arises primarily during internal travel within Iraq, particularly at checkpoints, and depends on the route taken, available documentation, and access to family or local support. The absence of recognised identity documents may, in certain circumstances, create a real risk of ill-treatment. It further held that the feasibility of internal relocation must be assessed on an individual basis, and while relocation within the Kurdistan Region of Iraq may be viable for returnees with adequate documentation and family support, it may be unduly harsh where such factors are lacking.  

The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants could in principle obtain identity documentation through family assistance or Embassy procedures, and that return and internal movement would not necessarily give rise to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

On 2 April 2026, the Human Rights Committee (CCPR) published its Views in the communication No. 3742/2020 submitted by Gentilmen Issa Magumba against the Republic of Korea, concerning the refusal to process an asylum application lodged in an airport transit zone and the applicant’s prolonged confinement in that zone.

The author, a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was held for approximately 14 months in the transit area of Incheon International Airport after being denied the possibility to apply for refugee status on the ground that he was a transit passenger and not subject to entry inspection. He claimed that this refusal exposed him to a risk of refoulement and that his confinement amounted to arbitrary detention and inhuman treatment.

The Committee found a violation of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights due to the denial of access to the asylum procedure. It reiterated that States must not remove individuals where there are substantial grounds for believing that they face a real risk of irreparable harm and must ensure access to an effective and independent review with suspensive effect. In the present case, the author’s asylum request was rejected solely on formal grounds linked to his status as a transit passenger, depriving him of any opportunity to seek protection against refoulement. The Committee held that domestic legal provisions cannot be applied in a manner that undermines obligations under the Covenant.

The Committee further found a violation of Article 9(1), holding that the author’s confinement in the airport transit area constituted a deprivation of liberty. It recalled that such deprivation may arise from confinement in a restricted airport area without free consent, and that prolonged and indefinite detention of asylum seekers may be arbitrary. The Committee noted that the author was subjected to de facto detention for approximately 14 months within a space under the State party’s jurisdiction, without any legal basis, as no formal detention order had been issued. His confinement was of indefinite duration, lacked appropriate justification, and was not based on an assessment of necessity or proportionality. The Committee therefore concluded that the author’s detention was arbitrary and constituted a violation of Article 9(1) of the Covenant.

Finally, the Committee found the conditions of detention and the prolonged exposure to inadequate living conditions such as lack of privacy, insufficient access to food, medical care and sanitary facilities and constant lighting during COVID-19 pandemic, to be incompatible with human dignity, therefore finding a violation of Article 10(1) of the Covenant.

The Committee concluded that the State party violated Articles 7, 9(1) and 10(1) of the Covenant and held that it is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including compensation, and to take measures to prevent similar violations in the future.