Finally, a report from the organization for security and cooperation in Europe, which is found at Item 2.7, indicates that there is evidence that Russian soldiers have targeted older persons intentionally. The report also notes that the destruction of social security system or the impossibility to get access to payment points constitutes a serious threat to the life for those such as the claimants who rely on their pension for income.
[11] The claimant also provided country condition documents which are found at Exhibits 5 and 6. For example, Exhibit 6 contains nine (9) articles highlighting war crimes committed by Russia since the start of the invasion and reports an article as describing the Russian attacks as genocide against Ukrainians.
[12] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution. Further, given the ongoing Russian invasion and that the claimants area has been attacked by Russia in the past, I find that the claimants face a serious forward-facing possibility of persecution if they were to return.
State Protection
[13] I have considered whether adequate state protection is available for the claimants, and I find that there is none. The claimants fear violence from the invading Russian army. While the Ukrainian state is attempting to provide protection from the Russian attack, there is great uncertainty about the level of protection a state will be able to provide. As such, I find that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimants in their circumstances.
Internal Flight Alternative
[14] I have also considered whether the claimants would have a viable internal flight alternative available to them and I find that they do not. The principal claimant testified that there is nowhere in the country where they could go and be safe and how they have no family or anyone else in Ukraine to support them if they were to return. Given the ongoing crisis in Ukraine related to the Russian invasion that is affecting the entire country, I find it would be unreasonable for the claimants in these circumstances to try to seek refuge elsewhere in the country. This is reflected in the March 2022 UNHCR report on returns to Ukraine, which is found at Item 1.23, that states that “In view of the volatility of the situation in the entire territory of Ukraine, UNHCR does not consider it appropriate to deny international protection to Ukrainians and former habitual residents of Ukraine on the basis of an internal flight or relocation alternative.” Further, a June 2022 report at Item 1.10 indicates that there are more than eight (8) million internally displaced persons in Ukraine. The report highlights numerous challenges facing the internally displaced persons, including the lack of accommodation, shortages of food, water and energy supplies, and barriers to accessing financial social support and house services. As such, I find that the claimants do not have a viable internal flight alternative available to them.
CONCLUSION
[15] For the reasons above, I determine that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act and the Board, therefore, accepts their claims. Given I am granting protection under section 96 of the Act, I find it unnecessary to consider their claims under section 97.
