The humanitarian argument, although it has proven to be very steadfast, is ultimately discretionary and therefore not guided by the qualities associated with the rule of law, such as accountability and transparency. The practice of inhibiting returns or allowing persons to remain on humanitarian grounds starting with ad hoc amnesties and regularization programmes has evolved in many countries into individual assessments of needs based on pre-determined criteria. The case law of the Strasbourg Court has contributed the to harmonization of the criteria of some of the categories previously receiving humanitarian protection through an inclusive interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. This chapter discusses whether the current protection mechanisms are sufficient or whether a tertiary protection status should be considered.