Citation: 2020 RLLR 12
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 23, 2020
Panel: S. Seevaratnam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Teklemicheal A. Sahlemariam
RPD Number: TB7-14076
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-14126, TB7-14127
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000076-000089
REASONS FOR DECISION
 The principal claimant, [XXX] and her daughters, [XXX] and [XXX] (the minor claimants), claim to be citizens of Ethiopia and they are claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1.
 This matter is a hearing de nova referred back on November 18, 2019, by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.2
 The mother and principal claimant, [XXX], consented to be the designated representative for her minor daughters, [XXX] and [XXX], for the purposes of the hearing.
 The principal claimant alleges that she fears returning to Ethiopia because of her perceived political opinion in opposition of the Ethiopian regime since she critiqued the government.3
 The minor daughters allege they fear returning to Ethiopia due to their gender.4 They are being forced by the family members of their father, who are ethnic Gurages,5 to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM)6.
 The panel has also carefully considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, prior to assessing the merits of this claim.7
 In [XXX] 2016, the principal claimant voiced her criticism of the actions of the Ethiopian government at a meeting held at the Ethiopian consulate in Qatar. High level government officials were present including the Ambassador. The claimant explained that she opposed the killing of innocent civilians who were protesting peacefully. She further explained that she opposed the ethnic divisions among the Tigrayan, Oromo, and Amhara people that were exacerbated by government policies and action. In addition, she opposed the lack of religious freedom and tolerance by the government.
 On [XXX], 2017, the principal claimant travelled to Ethiopia to visit her family during Easter. The principal claimant was arrested, detained, and interrogated upon arrival at the airport. The principal claimant and her daughters were terrified and feared for their lives. Ultimately, family members paid an exorbitant bribe for the claimant’s release on the condition that she depart Ethiopia on a specific date authorized by the Ethiopian government and she was denied the right of return.
 The principal claimant believes that there is no protection for persons who are critical of the Ethiopian government since political opposition is not tolerated. She fears re-arrest, detention, and even death since the security forces suspect her of being a political opponent of the government of Ethiopia.
 The principal claimant further fears that if she is incarcerated by the security forces, her husband’s family would have a larger influence and control over her daughters and subject them to FGM in keeping with their ethnic Gurages traditions. Thus, fearing for their safety, the claimants fled to Canada. The principal claimant testified that she had a strained marital relationship and her husband. He chose to remain in Qatar as a [XXX] and refused to join his wife and children in initiating a refugee claim in Canada. The principal claimant further testified that she and her husband have separated, but he consented to giving her sole custody of their minor daughters.8
 In Canada, the principal claimant continues to participate in political activities such as demonstrations9 in opposition to the Ethiopian government actions and policies.10
 The panel finds the claimants to be Convention refugees. The panel’s reasons are as follows.
 The claimants submitted copies of their passports issued by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which was certified to be true copies by an Immigration Officer with Citizenship and Immigration Canada on July 24, 2017.11
 The principal claimant also provided copies of the minor children’s birth certificates,12 her Ethiopian identification card,13 her educational certificates,14 a letter of employment,15 letters of support from friends and family,16 letters from the Ethiopian community association in Qatar, a letter from the Unity for Human Rights and Democracy in Toronto,17 and photos of the principal claimant participating in protests against the Ethiopian government.18
 The claimants have provided copies of their State of Qatar Residency Permits, which expired on [XXX], 2017.19 The principal claimant explained that their temporary resident status in the State of Qatar was dependent on the employment of the principal claimant’s husband, [XXX], an Ethiopian national, who was employed on contract as a [XXX]. He was issued a residency permit by the State of Qatar.20 The principal claimant testified that they lived as a family unit in Qatar from 2013 until 2017 when there was a breakdown of their marital union. Accordingly, the principal claimant further explained that she and her daughters have no right of return or legal status in Qatar.
 The panel is satisfied that the claimants do not have a right to nationality or permanent status in the State of Qatar. The panel finds that the claimants are citizens of Ethiopia.
 The panel is guided by the leading jurisprudence on the issue of credibility. Maldonado stands for the principle that when a claimant “swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness.”21
 The principal claimant responded to all questions clearly and directly. Her sworn viva voce evidence was consistent with her Basis of Claim form (BOC),22 her personal documents,23 letters of support from friends, family, and community organizations,24 as well as the documentary evidence.25
 The principal claimant’s brother, [XXX], provided a letter that corroborated the claimant’s arrest in Ethiopia.26 Other Ethiopian nationals who were residents of Qatar, namely, [XXX]27 and [XXX]28 witnessed the claimant’s criticism of the Ethiopian government and are cognizant of her arrest and harsh treatment by the Ethiopian authorities.
 The panel finds the principal claimant to be a credible and trustworthy witness. Accordingly, she has established her own subjective fear of persecution and for her daughters.
WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION
Imputed Political Opinion
 The panel has carefully reviewed reputable, objective, and reliable sources in assessing the objective basis of this claim.
 The Ethiopia. Freedom in the World 2020 Report, states in its overview that,
Ethiopia is undergoing a transition set off by the 2018 appointment of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who came to power after Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn resigned the face of mass protests at which demonstrators demanded greater political rights. Abiy has pledged to reform Ethiopia’s authoritarian state, ruled by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) since 1991, and is in the process of rewriting the country’s repressive electoral, terrorism, media, and other laws. However, Ethiopia remains beset by political factionalism and intercommunal violence, abuses by security forces and violations of due process are still common, and many restrictive laws remain in force. A major reorganization of the ruling party, growing conflict between ethnic communities, and new claims for self-determination have created a fluid political situation as the country prepares for elections in 2020.29
 The United Kingdom Home Office Fact-Finding Mission. Ethiopia: The political situation report dated March 2020 states as follows:
We are trying to make people aware that they are being targeted due to bad politics and their ethnic background, simply for being Amhara. Abiy is not working in a way that he said he would. We had a team of brilliant lawyers who are representing Amhara prisoners of conscience at the courts. They challenged “evidences” by the police and government Attorneys. However, the problem is that the final decision is a political one and not a legal one. The farmers in different parts of Oromia were detained for at least 2 weeks, brought to court, the court investigated and ruled that they should be released with a 5,000 Birr bail. This is a lot of money. It is to discourage them economically, they cannot afford that, if they are arrested again.30
 The United State. Department of State (DOS) Ethiopia 2019 Human Rights Country Reports indicates the following:
Significant human rights issues included: reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by security forces; citizens killing other citizens based on their ethnicity; unexplained disappearances; arbitrary arrest and detention by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; unlawful interference with privacy; censorship, and blocking of the internet and social media sites; criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct; and child labor, including the worst forms.31
 The DOS report further states that:
There were numerous reports that the government and its representatives committed arbitrary and unlawful killings. Security forces used excessive force against civilians.32
The constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention and provide for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of his or her arrest or detention in court. Authorities, however, detained persons arbitrarily, including activists, journalists, and opposition party members.33
 According to a report by Human Rights Watch titled Ethiopia: Communications Shutdown Takes Heavy Toll indicates as follows:
“The Ethiopian government’s blanket shutdown of communications inOromia is taking a disproportionate toll on the population and should be lifted immediately,” said Laetitia Bader, Horn of Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The restrictions affect essential services, reporting on critical events, and human rights investigations, and could risk making an already bad humanitarian situation even worse.”
Under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s administration, communication blackouts without government justifications has become routine during social and political unrest, Human Rights Watch said.
A ruling party regional spokesman told the media in January that the communications shutdown had “no relationship” to the military operations but then said that it had contributed to the operation’s success. The federal government offered no explanation for the shutdown until February 3, when Abiy told parliament that restrictions were in place in western Oromia for “security reasons.”34
Instead of indefinite, blanket shutdowns and repressing peaceful dissent, Ethiopian authorities should use the media to provide transparent information that can discourage violence and direct security forces to act according to international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said.
“The lack of transparency and failure to explain these shutdowns only furthers the perception that they are meant to suppress public criticism of the government,” Bader said. “Amid ongoing unrest and ahead of critical national elections, the government should be seeking to maintain internet and phone communications to ease public safety concerns, not increase them.”35
 In its report titled Ethiopia: Political situation and treatment of opposition, the Danish Immigration Service states that:
…[M]embers of the diaspora community were, “without doubt” monitored closely by the government, wherever they might reside. This is, according to the interlocutor, no secret…
The editor noted that if Ethiopians participate in demonstrations against the Ethiopian regime in a foreign country, be it in Europe or in the USA, would be video-taped to document their activity. This would also be the case if members of the diaspora had gotten foreign nationality. Thus they would fear that they were to return to Ethiopia then something might happen to them upon return. As examples of what might occur, Mr. Giorgis mentioned that they could run the risk of being detained in the airport or jailed.36
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
 The United States Department of State (DOS) Ethiopia 2019 Human Rights Country Reports indicates the following indicates the following:
Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): FGM/C is illegal, with punishment including imprisonment and a fine, depending on the crime. The government did not actively enforce this prohibition. The 2016 DHS stated that 65 percent of girls and women ages 15-49 were subjected to FGM/C. The prevalence of FGM/C was highest in the Somali Region (99 percent) and lowest in the Tigray Region (23 percent). It was less common in urban areas. The law criminalizes the practice of clitoridectomy and provides for three months’ imprisonment or a fine of at least 500 birr ($17) for perpetrators. Infibulation of the genitals (the most extreme and dangerous form of FGM/C) is punishable by five to 10 years’ imprisonment. According to government sources, there had never been a criminal charge regarding FGM/C, but media reported limited application of the law.37
 According to Ethiopia Social Institutions and Gender Index 2019, 65% of women in Ethiopia have undergone FGM.38
 The principal claimant testified that she was also a victim of the traditional cultural practice, and she opposes her minor daughters being subject to this painful and dangerous practice.
 The Gender Index 2019 further finds that,
FGM rates have reduced significantly since 2000 for girls aged 0 to 14 years old (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2014). However, despite measures and efforts by the Government and the notable decrease of FGM amongst younger girls and in urban areas, the CEDAW Committee (2011) stresses that FGM is prevalent in rural and pastoralist areas. FGM is a practice embedded in social constructs on gender roles and values and is practiced by different communities in Ethiopia. Its prevalence and the age girls undergo FGM vary across regions and communities. One of the reasons invoked by some communities for the practice of FGM is the preservation of women’ s chastity. It also occurs that parents encourage the practice as uncircumcised girls are likely to be marginalized and socially excluded in some communities, and would face difficulty to be married.39 [footnotes omitted]
 Counsel’s documentary evidence corroborates the principal claimant’s sworn viva voce evidence that FMG is still practiced among several rural communities including the Gurages.40
 Based on current country documentary evidence and the credible allegations, the panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia, by reason of the principal claimant’s perceived political opinion and the minor claimants’ gender.
 There is a presumption that except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, the state is capable of protecting its citizens.41 To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens.42
 The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia states that “[w]here the person has a well-founded fear of persecution from the state, they are unlikely to be able to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities.”43
 According to the United Kingdom Home Office Fact-Finding Mission. Ethiopia: The political situation report dated March 2020,
Several sources noted the effect of ethnic politics on regional security services. William Davidson observed “There are complicated federal dynamics at play, we are seeing increasingly assertive administrations in certain regions.” Wondemagegn Goshu Addis Ababa University stated: “Abiy has not consolidated the regional states and their militias, there are some political groups against Abiy and his reforms and this is showing at the regional level… You can see the danger that arises from certain ethnic groups against each other.”44 [footnotes omitted]
 The Report further indicates that “Information on the effectiveness of security services varied between some regions.”45
 In addition, the report cites, Wondemagegn Goshu, from Addis Ababa University,
noted that the central government did not have effective control over regional security forces and the senior officials of EZEMA noted that “[t]he government does not have effective control over the local regional states. Wondemagegn Goshu and the Life and Peace Institute considered that regional areas had become increasingly assertive.46 [footnotes omitted]
 In addition, the report finds that,
The people who were in power previously are still very much there, the very same people who were against the social revolution but when it became reality they are a part of it. What should have happened was more people should have faced justice. If they do not put people before a justice system, the government will lose all the reformation progress they have made. The reformation for the public was always about whether there was rule of law or not. So, if the law is for everyone, including the military and prime minster and the public, let everyone face justice.
But the government have not been proactive in this area, therefore it can be assumed by some that they are against the reformation. There is a lack of commitment from the government.
There has been a high number [level] of corruption. Human rights abusers are still in power, for example at all levels. The public demand they be brought to justice.47
 The report discusses the extent to which the government has control over the security forces.
They have control but it in an issue of capacity especially security.
The intelligence and military in the past 90% was controlled by TPLF, Abiy purged them so quickly when he came to power, the change should have been more gradual and smarter. There has been no process put in place. This was a security that could not see members of the Army marching to the PM, they didn’t see it coming they weren’t prepared. We needed the structure. The alleged coup would never have happened under previous government.
There has been arise Amhara nationalism and militant groups is concerning. We haven’t seen the security doing anything because of lack of intel – not looking at the issues properly, regional areas have become more assertive.48
 The report further finds that,
In some cases of arrests or human rights abuses, police try to push their own agenda and avenge past crimes by abusing their power.
We hear about a lot of harassment from the police or security forces, which we think are genuine, but I do not think Abiy is involved in this. When it comes to rule of law, respecting human rights, respect for different languages etc, our culture is awful. There are definitely cases where individuals are arrested, beaten, refused to hold a press conference. The different groups fighting for their own status, for example the Amhara and Oromo.49
 The DOS report states that “[c]orruption, especially the solicitation of bribes, including police and judicial corruption, remained a problem.”50 The report further finds that “[t]he law provides criminal penalties for conviction of corruption. The government did not implement effectively or comprehensively.”51
 According to Ethiopia. Freedom in the World 2020,
The judiciary is officially independent, but in practice it is subject to political interference, and judgments rarely deviate from government policy. The November 2018 appointment of lawyer and civil society leader Meaza Ashenafi as president of the Supreme Court raised hopes for judicial reform, though no major improvements were registered in 2019.”52
 The 2020 Human Rights Watch report for Ethiopia indicates that:
Human rights reforms implemented by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed during his first year in office were threatened in 2019 by communal, including ethnic, conflict and breakdowns in law and order.
The June 22 assassinations of several high-level government officials, which the government linked to an alleged coup attempt in the Amhara region – as well as political unrest and communal violence in the capital, Addis Ababa, and Oromia following an incident with a popular Oromo activist and media owner, Jawar Mohammed-highlighted increasing tensions ahead of Ethiopia’ s scheduled 2020 national elections.53
 Counsel’ s most recent country condition package54 has a plethora of examples of human rights abuses by the Ethiopian security forces.
 The principal claimant was arrested, detained, and interrogated by the Ethiopian security forces in Addis Ababa on [XXX], 2017.55 The claimant fears that she would be re arrested, detained, and mistreated upon her return to Ethiopia. Given her previous arrest, the claimant would be perceived to be an opponent of the state, if she were to return to Ethiopia today.
 The NDP for Ethiopia56 and the documents submitted by the claimant57 make clear that the state is the agent of persecution, and in these particular circumstances, is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant.
 Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimants have met the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)
 The Federal Court of Appeal established a two-part test for assessing an IFA in Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu:
(1) As per Rasaratnam, “the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists”58 and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA.
(2) Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there.59
 The claimants bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that they would be persecuted on a Convention ground, or subject personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in all of Ethiopia.
 The United Kingdom Home Office Report on Country Policy and Information Note: Ethiopia: Opposition to the Government cautions,
That decision makers must carefully consider the relevance and reasonableness of internal relocation taking full account of the individual circumstances of the particular person. However, where the person has a well-founded fear of persecution from the state, it is unlikely to be reasonable to expect them to relocate to escape that risk.60
 It is evident that the Ethiopian security forces operate with impunity throughout the country. The documentary evidence corroborates the claimant’s testimony that there is no state protection available to her since the state security forces are her agents of persecution. Regarding the minor claimants, their mother testified that FGM is practiced in the rural areas and there is no effective action by the government forces in prosecuting violations of the FGM prohibition act, As such, there is no safety for the claimants anywhere within Ethiopia.
 The principal claimant is a single mother who is perceived as a political opponent by the Ethiopian regime with two minor daughters. The panel finds that an internal flight alternative is not reasonable given the particular profile and circumstances of the claimants.
 For the above-mentioned reasons, the panel finds [XXX] and her daughters, [XXX] and [XXX] are Convention refugees. The claimants have established that there is a reasonable chance of persecution if they were to return to their country of nationality Ethiopia, today.
(signed) S. Seevaratnam
September 23, 2020
1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) Decision – TB8-13557, TB8-13558, and TB8-13559, dated November 18, 2019.
3 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form (BOC) – TB7-14076, received July 28, 2017.
4 Exhibit 9, BOC Narrative Amendment, received September 4, 2020, at para. 3 – 4.
5 Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at p.14 [XXX] of [XXX].
6 Exhibit 9, BOC Narrative Amendment dated August 28, 2020, received September 4, 2020, at para. 3 – 4.
7 Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
8 Exhibit 11, Letter from [XXX] received August 17, 2017.
9 Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 55 – 60.
10 Exhibit 12, Letter from Ethiopian Human Right and Community Organizations, 3 pages, received September 10, 2020.
11 Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, Certified True Copy of Passport, received July 28, 2017.
12 Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 1 – 10.
13 Exhibit 13, Identity Documents, received August 30, 2017, item 4.
14 Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 17 – 25.
15 Ibid., at p. 26.
16 Ibid., at pp. 27 – 44.
17 Exhibit 12, Letter from Ethiopian Human Right and Community Organizations, 3 pages, received September 10, 2020.
18 Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 55 – 60.
19 Exhibit 13, Identity Documents, received August 30, 2017, items 6 – 9.
20 Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, p. 2
21 Maldonado, Pedro Enrique Juarez v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-450-79), Heald, Ryan, MacKay, November 19, 1979. Reported: Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34. (F.C.A.), at para 5.
22 Exhibit 2, BOC, received July 28, 2017; Exhibit 9, BOC Narrative Amendment, received September 4, 2020.
23 Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020.
24 Ibid., Letters of Support, at pp. 27 – 44; Exhibit 12, Letter from Ethiopian Human Right and Community Organizations, 3 pages, received September 10, 2020.
25 Exhibit 5, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020); Exhibit 10, Country Documents, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 61 – 136.
26 Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 27 – 28.
27 Ibid., at p. 34.
28 Ibid., at pp. 40 – 44.
29 Exhibit 5, NDP for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020), item 2.4, s. Overview.
30 Ibid., item 4.21, at p. 109.
31 Ibid., item 2.1, s. Executive Summary.
32 Ibid., s. 1 (a).
33 Ibid., s. 1 (d).
34 Ibid., item 11.1, at pp. 1 – 2.
35 Ibid., at p. 3.
36 Ibid., item 4.4, at paras. 140 – 141.
37 Ibid., item 2.1, s. 6.
38 Ibid., item 5.2, at. p. 1.
39 Ibid., s. 2(e).
40 Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 131 – 136.
41 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward,  2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.
42 Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-225-07), Létoumeau, Nadon, Sharlow, March 12, 2008, 2008 FCA 94. Reported: Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.), at para. 38.
43 Exhibit 5, NDP Ethiopia (June 30, 2020), item 1.10, at para. 2.5.1.
44 Ibid., item 4.21, at para. 8.4.5.
45 Ibid., at para. 8.4.6.
46 Ibid., 8.4.2.
47 Ibid., at p. 112.
48 Ibid., at p. 126.
49 Ibid., at p. 131.
50 Ibid., item 2.1, s. 4.
52 Ibid., item, 2.4, s. F1.
53 Ibid., item 2.3, at p. 1.
54 Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 61 – 130.
55 Exhibit 2, BOC, Narrative, lines 44 – 78, received July 28, 2017.
56 Exhibit 5, NDP for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020).
57 Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 61 – 130.
58 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at para 9.
59 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.).
60 Exhibit 5, NDP for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020), item 1.10, at para. 2.6.1.