34. On this basis, the decision-maker bears the burden of proof of establishing that an analysis of relocation is relevant to the particular case. If considered relevant, it is up to the party asserting this to identify the proposed area of relocation and provide evidence establishing that it is a reasonable alternative for the individual concerned. 35. Basic rules of procedural fairness require that the asylum-seeker be given clear and adequate notice that such a possibility is under consideration.12 They also require that the person be given an opportunity to provide arguments why (a) the consideration of an alternative location is not relevant in the case, and (b) if deemed relevant, that the proposed area would be unreasonable. B. Accelerated or admissibility procedures 36. Given the complex and substantive nature of the inquiry, the examination of an internal flight or relocation alternative is not appropriate in accelerated procedures, or in deciding on an individual’s admissibility to a full status determination procedure.13 C. Country of origin information 37. While examination of the relevance and reasonableness of a potential internal relocation area always requires an assessment of the individual’s own particular circumstances, welldocumented, good quality and current information and research on conditions in the country of origin are important components for the purpose of such examination. The usefulness of such information may, however, be limited in cases where the situation in the country of origin is volatile and sudden changes may occur in areas hitherto considered safe. Such changes may not have been recorded by the time the claim is being heard. IV. CONCLUSION 38. The concept of internal flight or relocation alternative is not explicitly referred to in the criteria set out in Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention. The question of whether the claimant has an internal flight or relocation alternative may, however, arise as part of the holistic determination of refugee status. It is relevant only in certain cases, particularly when the source of persecution emanates from a non-State actor. Even when relevant, its applicability will depend on a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case and the reasonableness of relocation to another area in the country of origin. 12 See Summary Conclusions – Internal Protection/Relocation/Flight Alternative, para. 7. See Summary Conclusions – Internal Protection/Relocation/Flight Alternative, para. 6; Executive Committee Conclusion No. 87 (L), 1999, para. j; and Note on International Protection, 1999, para. 26 (UN doc. A/AC.96/914, 7 July 1999). 13 8