accommodation, or where medical care cannot be provided or is clearly inadequate, the area may not be a reasonable alternative. It would be unreasonable, including from a human rights perspective, to expect a person to relocate to face economic destitution or existence below at least an adequate level of subsistence. At the other end of the spectrum, a simple lowering of living standards or worsening of economic status may not be sufficient to reject a proposed area as unreasonable. Conditions in the area must be such that a relatively normal life can be led in the context of the country concerned. If, for instance, an individual would be without family links and unable to benefit from an informal social safety net, relocation may not be reasonable, unless the person would otherwise be able to sustain a relatively normal life at more than just a minimum subsistence level. 30. If the person would be denied access to land, resources and protection in the proposed area because he or she does not belong to the dominant clan, tribe, ethnic, religious and/or cultural group, relocation there would not be reasonable. For example, in many parts of Africa, Asia and elsewhere, common ethnic, tribal, religious and/or cultural factors enable access to land, resources and protection. In such situations, it would not be reasonable to expect someone who does not belong to the dominant group, to take up residence there. A person should also not be required to relocate to areas, such as the slums of an urban area, where they would be required to live in conditions of severe hardship. D. Relocation and internally displaced persons 31. The presence of internally displaced persons who are receiving international assistance in one part of the country is not in itself conclusive evidence that it is reasonable for the claimant to relocate there. For example, the standard and quality of life of the internally displaced are often insufficient to support a finding that living in the area would be a reasonable alternative to flight. Moreover, where internal displacement is a result of “ethnic cleansing” policies, denying refugee status on the basis of the internal flight or relocation concept could be interpreted as condoning the resulting situation on the ground and therefore raises additional concerns. 32. The reality is that many thousands of internally displaced persons do not enjoy basic rights and have no opportunity to exercise the right to seek asylum outside their country. Thus, although standards largely agreed by the international community now exist, their implementation is by no means assured in practice. Moreover, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement specifically affirm in Principle 2(2) that they are not to be interpreted as “restricting, modifying or impairing the provisions of any international human rights or international humanitarian law instrument or rights granted to persons under domestic law” and in particular, they are “without prejudice to the right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries.” 11 III. PROCEDURAL ISSUES A. Burden of proof 33. The use of the relocation concept should not lead to additional burdens on asylumseekers. The usual rule must continue to apply, that is, the burden of proving an allegation rests on the one who asserts it. This is consistent with paragraph 196 of the Handbook which states that … while the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the examiner. Indeed, in some cases, it may be for the examiner to use all the means at his [or her] disposal to produce the necessary evidence in support of the application. 11 See also W. Kälin, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement: Annotations, Studies in Transnational Legal Policy No. 32, 2000 (The American Society of International Law, The Brookings Institution, Project on Internal Displacement), pp. 8-10. 7