16. Not all sources of possible protection are tantamount to State protection. For example, if the area is under the control of an international organisation, refugee status should not be denied solely on the assumption that the threatened individual could be protected by that organisation. The facts of the individual case will be particularly important. The general rule is that it is inappropriate to equate the exercise of a certain administrative authority and control over territory by international organisations on a transitional or temporary basis with national protection provided by States. Under international law, international organisations do not have the attributes of a State. 17. Similarly, it is inappropriate to find that the claimant will be protected by a local clan or militia in an area where they are not the recognised authority in that territory and/or where their control over the area may only be temporary. Protection must be effective and of a durable nature: It must be provided by an organised and stable authority exercising full control over the territory and population in question. Would the claimant be exposed to a risk of being persecuted or other serious harm upon relocation? 18. It is not sufficient simply to find that the original agent of persecution has not yet established a presence in the proposed area. Rather, there must be reason to believe that the reach of the agent of persecution is likely to remain localised and outside the designated place of internal relocation. 19. Claimants are not expected or required to suppress their political or religious views or other protected characteristics to avoid persecution in the internal flight or relocation area. The relocation alternative must be more than a “safe haven” away from the area of origin. 20. In addition, a person with an established fear of persecution for a 1951 Convention reason in one part of the country cannot be expected to relocate to another area of serious harm. If the claimant would be exposed to a new risk of serious harm, including a serious risk to life, safety, liberty or health, or one of serious discrimination,8 an internal flight or relocation alternative does not arise, irrespective of whether or not there is a link to one of the Convention grounds.9 The assessment of new risks would therefore also need to take into account serious harm generally covered under complementary forms of protection.10 21. The proposed area is also not an internal flight or relocation alternative if the conditions there are such that the claimant may be compelled to go back to the original area of persecution, or indeed to another part of the country where persecution or other forms of serious harm may be a possibility. C. The reasonableness analysis 22. In addition to there not being a fear of persecution in the internal flight or relocation alternative, it must be reasonable in all the circumstances for the claimant to relocate there. This test of “reasonableness” has been adopted by many jurisdictions. It is also referred to as a test of “undue hardship” or “meaningful protection”. 23. The “reasonableness test��� is a useful legal tool which, while not specifically derived from the language of the 1951 Convention, has proved sufficiently flexible to address the issue of whether or not, in all the circumstances, the particular claimant could reasonably be expected to move to the proposed area to overcome his or her well-founded fear of being persecuted. It is not an analysis based on what a hypothetical “reasonable person” should be expected to 8 See UNHCR Handbook, paras. 51–52. A more general right not to be returned to a country where there is a risk of torture or cruel or inhuman treatment is found, either explicitly or by interpretation, in international human rights instruments. The most prominent are Article 3 of the Convention against Torture 1984, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, and Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. 10 See UN docs. EC/50/SC/CRP.18, 9 June 2000 and EC/GC/01/18, 4 September 2001. 9 5