Country of Origin Information (COI)

1. Country of Origin Information (COI) EJTN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROJECT JUDICIAL TRAINING ON EU ASYLUM LAW Helsinki, 8th. and 9th. of March 2018 Wolfgang Bartsch

2. Background • Old days: country report Foreign Office and ai: more guessing around than deciding• Recent challenge: to oversee a huge amount of information and find the case specific bits • Emerging importance of COI for decision makers

3. Applications January - June 2017 per 1.000 inhabitants

4. Applications Germany 1953 - 2018

5. Appeals Germany 2011 - 2016

6. Uniqueness of asylum appeals • • Events in far away countries • • Language/Culture • • Assessing a future risk • • Grave consequences • • Limited Evidence • > Narrative of the appellant • > Country of origin information

7. Legal relevance • Legal obligation to consult relevant up to date, unbiased and reliable country information of various sources - common place: • Directives • Qualification Directive 2011/95/EU • Art. 4 (3) (a): assessment of applications includes COI • Art. 8 (2) : internal protection • Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU e.g. • Art. 10 (3) (b): precise and up-to-date COI • Art. 10 (4): COI in appeals • Art. 12 (1) (d): access to applicants/counsel • Art. 31 (8) (e): accelerated procedures • Art. 37 (3): safe country of origin • Art. 45 (2) (a): withdrawal • Proposals for Regulations on Qualification and Procedures

8. Legal relevance • EASO Regulation • Art. 4: EASO organise, promote andcoordinateactivitiesrelated to COI • ECJ • C-411/10 and C-493/10 • ECtHR • M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece • Sufi and Elmi v. UK • National courts • Germany: • First and second instances have to ascertain the facts ex officio • BVerfG - 2 BvR 2954/09 -: constitutional duty in asylum cases

9. Practical Relevance • Even more important: matter-of-factly no one can reach an informed decision without consulting comprehensive COI- past orientated: checking the applicant's testimony - future orientated: checking risk of persecution or serious harm upon return general situation in country of origin applicant’s credibility risks upon return applicants personal circumstances

10. Types of Sources International Organisations Government Forms of Information NGOs Types of Sources/Forms of Information Media Academia/Experts Written/Oral Research Institutes… Photos Films/ V ideos Maps/Graphs Social media Databases Portals Not sources but channels to access sources

11. COI in appeals • Inquisitorial / adversarial systems • Judges as de facto COI researches • COI research: a profession by its own • COI units serving the asylum authorities/courts?

12. COI in appeals • • Shared responsibility • • Disclosure • • COI in a foreign language • • Equality of arms • • Authority to request input from state and non state entities • • Taking responsibility

13. https://www.verwaltungsgericht-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/aktuelles/erkenntnismittellisten/aktuelle-erkenntnismittellisten-86925.htmlhttps://www.verwaltungsgericht-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/aktuelles/erkenntnismittellisten/aktuelle-erkenntnismittellisten-86925.html

14. Quality Standards Generally recognised quality standards- ACCORD Training Manual - UNHCR paper from 2004- Common EU Guidelines for Processing COI- COI Checklist elaborated by the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ) - EASO Country of Origin Information report methodology, July 2012

15. IARLJ Checklist • Relevance and adequacy of the Information • i) How relevant is the COI to the case in hand? • ii) Does the COI source adequately cover the relevant issue(s)? • iii) How current or temporally relevant is the COI? • Source of the Information • iv) Is the COI material satisfactorily sourced? • v) Is the COI based on publicly available and accessible sources? • vi) Has the COI been prepared on an empirical basis using sound methodology? • Nature / Type of the Information • vii) Does the COI exhibit impartiality and independence? • viii) Is the COI balanced and not overly selective? • Prior Judicial Scrutiny • ix) Has there been judicial scrutiny by other national courts of the COI in question?

16. Who ? Why ? What? How? Independent research Inform and influence policy Conducts high - quality, AREU engages with institute based in Kabul Donors and practice policy - relevant research policymakers, civil society, Actively disseminates the researchers and students to results promote their use of Example: Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit Promotes a culture of AREU's research and its research and learning library, to strengthen their research capacity, and to create opportunities for analysis, reflection and debate. « About us » « Publications » « Research » Google: Referenced by many (Google, Ecoi.net) Cited in other reports What others say

17. Evaluating COI Sufi and Elmi v. UK Objectivity of country reports Research of the British Immigration Advisory Service 2010 Administrative Court of Lueneburg – 1 A 296/02 UK Upper Tribunal AK and Home Office 14, 15th March 2012 (country guidance case Afghanistan) Quasi-binding country reports? Country reportsandcase specific COI Judgements as a source for COI

18. Evaluating COI Hierarchy of sources A general hierarchy of sources cannot be established. At least not in the sense that this means that the sources with the highest rank in such a hierarchy always provide the most reliable information.* Valued by judges** Independent sources without a political objective A source from a group or organisation rather than an individual Well known, reliable, balanced, sourced and up to date *Common EU Guidelines for processing Country of Origin Information (April 2008), section 2.2.5. 93 **Natasha Tsangarides, The Refugee Roulette: The Role of Country Information in RSD, January 2010

19. Appropriate use of COI • Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency • The use of country of origin information in deciding asylum applications: A thematic inspection • October 2010 – May 2011 • 17% of reasons for refusal letters (12 cases) from our file sample showed either the selective use of country information or unjustified assertions based on the evidence available. • Over 13% of reasons for refusal letters (7 cases) included country information which was, at best, tangential to the issues relevant to the asylum claim. • Citation

20. Availability of COI • Access to national/international databases e.g.: • - EU Common COI Portal: https://coi.easo.europa.eu/ • - Immigration and Refugee Board Canada: www.irb-cisr.gc.ca • - Human rights watch: www.hrw.org • - UNHCR: www.unhcr.org/refworld/ • - ai: www.amnesty.org/ • - ecoi net: www.ecoi.net/ • - International crisis group: www.crisisgroup.org/ • - UK Border Agency: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk • - Landinfo Norway: www.landinfo.no - IARLJ: www.iarlj.org • - MiLo: https://milo.bamf.de - Forced Migration: http://www.forcedmigration.org/research-resources/regions- EDAL: http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en • - US State Department: http://www.cfr.org/publication/allreports.html • Professional COI units

21. Web tools

22. EASO - Training

23. Contradicting assessment of COI Example: Afghanistan

24. Subsidiary Protection for Afghan appellants • COI suggest: situation worsens • Recognition rates decrease • German CourtsNo real risk of serious harm in Kabul, because the number of civil victims is too low in relation to the number of inhabitants – internal flight alternative for young single menExemption: individual vulnerability • Swiss CourtsSituation in Kabul is live threatening and therefore no internal flight alternative even not for young single menExemption: especially favourable features like young single man whose social network provides housing and basic assistance

25. Thank you for your attention I am looking forward to your questions

26. Contact wolfgang.bartsch@justiz.niedersachsen.de +39-531-488-3067