In the opinion of the CJEU, the Union legislature's intention was to grant subsidiary protection not only in the case of international or non-international armed conflicts, as defined in humanitarian law, but also in the case of internal armed conflict, assuming that these conflicts are characterized by so-called “indiscriminate violence." In the opinion of the CJEU, humanitarian law and the system of subsidiary protection provided by the Directive pursue different objectives and bring clearly distinct mechanisms of protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union agreed with him. The complainant considered that in the case of the EU Directive, the term should have an autonomous character and be defined independently. The complainant alleged that the Belgian authorities handling his case wrongly used the definition of "armed conflict" derived from international humanitarian law. Diakite, however, highlighted that he participated in anti-governments movements there and claimed that his return to the country would result in repression and violence towards him. The authorities argued that there is no armed conflict in Guinea.
0 kommentar(er)
