CCPR/C/112/D/2053/2011 Appendices Appendix I [Original: English] Joint opinion of Committee members Gerald L. Neuman and Yuji Iwasawa (concurring) We concur fully with the Committee’s Views. We write separately merely to point out that the Committee’s discussion in paragraph 7.4 reflects the well-established principle of the “internal flight alternative”, a basic rule of international refugee law as well as international human rights law. Individuals are not in need of international protection if they can avail themselves of the protection of their own State; if resettling within the State would enable them to avoid a localized risk, and resettling would not be unreasonable under the circumstances, then returning them to a place where they can live in safety does not violate the principle of non-refoulement. See, for example, communication No. 1897/2009, S.Y.L. v. Australia, inadmissibility decision of 24 July 2013, para. 8.4; Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, Applications. Nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07 (European Court of Human Rights, 2011), para. 266; and Omeredo v. Austria, Application No. 8969/10 (European Court of Human Rights 2011) (inadmissibility decision). 12