CREDO Project Fadela Novak-Irons IRC Conference, Dublin 09.11.2012
The Importance of Quality Quality assurance: the way forward for EU implementing all aspects of CEAS Not merely an important area of focus for states facing challenges BUT an ongoing area of work for all states Focus on quality is needed to ensure states fulfil their obligation under the asylum acquis UNHCR past quality projects: QI (UK, 2004-), ASQAEM (Central Eur., 2008-10), FDQ (12 MS, 2010-11), other national level quality activities
The Importance of Credibility At the core of asylum procedure Credibility findings: identification of material facts Estimates of credibility rejections EU MS estimates: Between 25% and 60% UNHCR APD Study estimates: The majority of all rejected cases Research estimates: between 48% and 90%
Challenges Decision under conditions of uncertainty Absence of witnesses Difficult to obtain documentary evidence General nature of COI Inter-cultural context Human behaviour Role of memory Vulnerabilities and trauma
UNHCR s Concerns Divergences in standards of proof Decisions not explicit re. evidence accepted or rejected, and standard applied Deduced from the decision: high standard of proof applied Assumptions and stereotypes Use of applicant s demeanour in credibility assessments No opportunity to comment on adverse credibility findings Not well-reasoned decisions
CREDO Project - Improving credibility assessment in the asylum system
CREDOproject ERF funded Sept. 2011 April 2012 3 project partners: HHC, UNHCR, IARLJ 3 project outputs: HHC: training manual for asylum practitioners a multidisciplinary approach UNHCR: report on state practices IARLJ: Judicial guidance Brussels Seminar launch 3 products, share experiences, engage discussion on key issues N.B. Child credibility assessment out of scope
CREDOproject UNHCR Component Methodology: National research: BE, NL, UK desk-based research (legal and policy framework, jurisprudence, training tools) 10 interview observations 40 file reviews (top 3 nationalities representative proportion of grants and declines ) 10 interviews with decision-makers, senior staff, policy makers, lawyers Jurisprudence: 3 EU MS, other European courts and beyond, ECtHR Available guidelines from other states Academic research a multi-disciplinary approach
CREDOproject A multi-disciplinary approach Multi-disciplinary approach: developments in science (human memory) psychology human behaviour inter-cultural studies Applicant and Decision-Maker theories of truth theories of risk Standards developed by CAT, ICTY, ICTR relevant to and articulated for the asylum context - not academic report
CREDOproject UNHCR Report Report purpose: provide insights into selected aspects of credibility assessment in asylum procedures in the EU -a foundation for discussion on how to strengthen state practice Not quantitative study, not comparative report, no evaluation of national practices in 3 EU MS Good practices and standards Checklists on detailed aspects of credibility assessment
UNHCR Guidance on Credibility UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status(1992) para. 195-205 UNHCR Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims(1998)
Legal Framework EU QD Art. 4 Assessment of Facts and Circumstances Art.4(1): in cooperation -Shared burden of proof Art.4(2): the elements to substantiate a claim Art.4(3): Assessment on individual basis taking into account: (a): all relevant facts as they relate to COI at the time of taking a decision on the application (c): the individual position and personal circumstances of the applicant, including factors such as background, gender and age
Legal Framework EU QD Art. 4 Ctnd Art.4(5): if unsupported statements, elements will not need confirmation if: (a): genuine effort to substantiate the application (b): satisfactory explanation re. any lack of other relevant elements (c): statements are coherent and plausible and do not run counter to COI (d): application at the earliest possible time (e): general credibility of the applicant has been established
Legal Framework EU QD Art.4(5)(e) general credibility of the applicant linked back to APD Art. 23(4)(d) to (k) - grounds for accelerationused to double as behaviours potentially damaging to applicant s credibility in absence of reasonable explanation
CREDOproject Report Focus Insights on and discussions of: What is the assessment of credibility The substantiation of the application Credibility indicators The general credibility of the applicant Taking into account the applicant s individual and contextual circumstances Threshold for establishing credibility Probing credibility..
CREDO Project Intersecting Genderwith credibility assessment
Credibility Indicators: coherent and plausible, not contradicting generally known facts UNHCR Note (para. 11): Credibility is established where the applicant has presented a claim which is coherentand plausible, not contradicting generally known facts, and therefore is, on balance, capable of being believed. EU QD Art.4(5)(c): the applicant s statements are found to be coherent and plausibleand do not run counter to available specific and general information relevant to the applicant s case
Credibility Indicators -EAC EAC Module on Evidence Assessment Internal credibility: inconsistencies, discrepancies (internal to account or against family members accounts) External credibility: against COI Plausibility: in accordance with common sense Other factors, incl. gender
Legal framework Art.4(3): Assessment on individual basis taking into account (c): the individual positionand personal circumstancesof the applicant, including factors such as background, gender and age
Intersecting gender with the credibility indicators Sufficiency of details and specificity how could applicant s genderaffect ability to provide detailed testimony: social background, gender role in society, social constraints, education level Internal consistency Consistency with information provided by family members, witnesses Consistency with COI Lack of gender-specific COI Plausibility
How is genderrelevant to credibility assessment? Intersecting gender with barriers to disclosure - late disclosure lack of supporting documentary evidence!! Demeanour and gender shared burden? benefit of the doubt? standard and proof (SGBV/trauma/PTSD)?
Thank You! Fadela Novak-Irons UNHCR Bureau for Europe novakfa@unhcr.org