Appeals by failed protection applicants dismissed as state protection in Georgia and Albania found effective

The Court of Appeal dismissed two combined appeals from the High Court, upholding refusals of international protection for two applicants from Georgia and Albania. Both applicants, who had previously been denied protection on the basis that threats they faced from non-state actors in their home countries did not entitle them to subsidiary protection due to available state protection, argued that the tribunal had misapplied the law regarding state protection, the evidential presumption in favour of victims of past persecution, and the relevance of their countries' designation as 'safe countries of origin.' The Court of Appeal found that the tribunal correctly distinguished between establishing a real risk of harm and the availability of state protection; it was not obliged to presume an ongoing lack of protection merely because past harm was established where the evidence and country information indicated functional state protection. The Court also held that the designation of ‘safe country of origin’ could be considered as relevant context but did not itself determine the outcome. All additional appellants' arguments, including those concerning the standard of proof and benefit of the doubt, were rejected. The tribunal's decisions to deny subsidiary protection were affirmed.