Is the area of relocation practically, safely, and legally accessible to the individual? 10. An area is not an internal flight or relocation alternative if there are barriers to reaching the area which are not reasonably surmountable. For example, the claimant should not be required to encounter physical dangers en route to the area such as mine fields, factional fighting, shifting war fronts, banditry or other forms of harassment or exploitation. 11. If the refugee claimant would have to pass through the original area of persecution in order to access the proposed area, that area cannot be considered an internal flight or relocation alternative. Similarly, passage through airports may render access unsafe, especially in cases where the State is the persecutor or where the persecutor is a non-State group in control of the airport. 12. The proposed area must also be legally accessible, that is, the individual must have the legal right to travel there, to enter, and to remain. Uncertain legal status can create pressure to move to unsafe areas, or to the area of original persecution. This issue may require particular attention in the case of stateless persons or those without documentation. Is the agent of persecution the State? 13. The need for an analysis of internal relocation only arises where the fear of being persecuted is limited to a specific part of the country, outside of which the feared harm cannot materialise. In practical terms, this normally excludes cases where the feared persecution emanates from or is condoned or tolerated by State agents, including the official party in oneparty States, as these are presumed to exercise authority in all parts of the country.6 Under such circumstances the person is threatened with persecution countrywide unless exceptionally it is clearly established that the risk of persecution stems from an authority of the State whose power is clearly limited to a specific geographical area or where the State itself only has control over certain parts of the country.7 14. Where the risk of being persecuted emanates from local or regional bodies, organs or administrations within a State, it will rarely be necessary to consider potential relocation, as it can generally be presumed that such local or regional bodies derive their authority from the State. The possibility of relocating internally may be relevant only if there is clear evidence that the persecuting authority has no reach outside its own region and that there are particular circumstances to explain the national government’s failure to counteract the localised harm. Is the agent of persecution a non-State agent? 15. Where the claimant fears persecution by a non-State agent of persecution, the main inquiries should include an assessment of the motivation of the persecutor, the ability of the persecutor to pursue the claimant in the proposed area, and the protection available to the claimant in that area from State authorities. As with questions involving State protection generally, the latter involves an evaluation of the ability and willingness of the State to protect the claimant from the harm feared. A State may, for instance, have lost effective control over its territory and thus not be able to protect. Laws and mechanisms for the claimant to obtain protection from the State may reflect the State’s willingness, but, unless they are given effect in practice, they are not of themselves indicative of the availability of protection. Evidence of the State’s inability or unwillingness to protect the claimant in the original persecution area will be relevant. It can be presumed that if the State is unable or unwilling to protect the individual in one part of the country, it may also not be able or willing to extend protection in other areas. This may apply in particular to cases of gender-related persecution. 6 See Summary Conclusions – Internal Protection/Relocation/Flight Alternative, Global Consultations on International Protection, San Remo Expert Roundtable, 6–8 September 2001 (hereinafter “Summary Conclusions – Internal Protection/Relocation/Flight Alternative”), para. 2; UNHCR, “Interpreting Article 1”, paras. 12–13. 7 See also paragraphs 16, 17 and 27 of these Guidelines. 4