Access to Justice
Access to Justice |
|
|
Back to Contents
James O’Sullivan, Refugee Documentation Centre Introduction I’ve been involved with training in the field of Country of Origin Information (COI) research for over two years now as part of my work with the Refugee Documentation Centre. Amongst the many subjects that my trainer colleagues and I cover in the COI courses we provide is the subject of source assessment. I’ve found that participants who attend our courses generally respond to the material on source assessment in a very positive way as it reflects real and practical concerns which crop up frequently in their everyday work. We all need information, whether we work as decision-makers, legal counsel or researchers in RSD. We need information about the countries asylum seekers come from and have transited through. We need information about the laws in such countries and the application of same, about the political and human rights situation there, about economic and cultural conditions and so forth. But we don’t just need information of any old kind or from any old source; we need information that is accurate and current, originating from sources we can rely on. This is where the technique of source assessment comes in, for how else can we tell if a source is to be trusted or if the information carried by that source is really accurate and up-to-date? The article which follows will outline the main guidance we provide on the subject of source assessment in the training courses we do. It is intended to be introductory in nature, as the subject of source assessment is complex and the act of assessing a source one which is best ‘taught’ and indeed learned by doing rather than by reading. 1. COI research and the Internet Let’s start by going back to go forward. In the early days of COI research, the information available to RSD professionals was limited and usually in hardcopy form. COI research was something decision-makers and legal counsel did as a minor addendum to their other duties. The full-time, dedicated COI researcher was a very rare creature. But this all changed with the advent of what has since been dubbed the ‘Information Revolution’ which started to take hold in the 1990s and which has continued apace since. It is a revolution characterised, of course, by the rise of the Internet. Since the 1990s, the Internet has become the key tool, often the only tool, used by decision-makers, lawyers, NGO staff and COI researchers (now no longer so rare) to locate useful and reliable information about the situation in the countries asylum seekers come from or have transited through. In turn, the impact upon the way and the extent to which COI is used in the determination process itself, as Gabor Gyulai of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee has recognised, has been profound: “Thanks to the advancement of information technology and the world-wide accessibility of the internet, now thousands of reports and newsprints are available within a click of a button. It is possible to find detailed information even on something that happened yesterday in a remote location thousands of kilometres away. The internet opened a great horizon of opportunities to use COI as determining factual evidence in asylum procedures, which enables authorities to confirm asylum-seekers’ statements in a much more detailed way than previously.” (Gyulai, Gabor (2007) Country Information in Asylum Procedures, pg. 9) While the internet has certainly opened up unprecedented opportunities for locating COI, it is also not without its shortcomings as a tool for serious research. Quality control is the main issue. The absence of any single authority or entity which checks the quality and validity of the information being made available means that the researcher is faced with a challenging task. While the freedom for practically anyone to say whatever they wish and then publish their views on the World Wide Web is certainly the feature which makes the Internet such a viable and vital information tool, it is also something which has ramifications for the serious researcher. Phil Bradley outlines the issues here: “[…] As far as the information professional is concerned there is no single authority which decides what information should be made available [via the internet], or in what form. As a result, individuals and organisations are by and large free to do exactly as they wish. Consequently, information may be sparse in some subject areas, while there may be comprehensive coverage in others; information may be current to within a few moments or it may be years out of date: information may be authoritative or wildly inaccurate; much information will be of no use or may be offensive or illegal in some countries.” (Bradley, Phil (1999) The Advanced Internet Searcher’s Handbook, pg.4 - 5) You only have to do a simple Google search on any major asylum-typical issue to discover that this is certainly the case. You’ll have hundreds if not thousands of results returned to you from as many sources. Some sources will already be known to you and trusted, while others will be sources that you’ve never encountered before, some doubtless containing useful information. What should you do in such cases? It is tempting to just look at it from the point of view of ‘pure information’ – if the information seems useful, then you may reasonably enough decide to use it regardless of what source it comes from. This is problematic however, as you cannot isolate an item of information from the source it has emanated from. The source and the information are intrinsically linked in COI research: if you take one, you are saddled with the other. So, while the information in itself might appear useful at first glance, it could come from an unreliable or indeed, a dubious source. In a best case scenario, information from an unreliable or dubious source may very well be correct, but concerns about the source can cast it in an adverse light and lead you and others to harbour doubts about its accuracy and reliability. In a worst case scenario, information from such a source could simply be 100% wrong, misleading and unreliable. This is, in essence, why the source assessment technique is so crucial to employ at such times. 2. The technique of assessing sources Source assessment essentially involves asking five critical questions to yourself about the document or report you’re found through your research and about the source that the document or report has emanated from. The five questions are: The process of seeking answers to these five questions will involve you engaging thoroughly with the source, its outlook and workings, and the answers you find will assist you in coming to a conclusion as to whether the source is likely to be trustworthy, and hence usable, or not. Note – The five questions outlined above and the additional notes of explanation which appear below are based on the original work of the authors of ‘Researching Country of Origin Information – A Training Manual’. See reference list below for further details. 3. Who, what, why, when and how? Let’s consider each of the five questions in more detail: WHO? - Author/publisher of the information When assessing a source, it is important to examine who the author/publisher of a given piece of information is. Is the information emanating from a governmental source or from an NGO? From a media source or a private individual? Establishing who the source is will reveal the possible ambitions or restrictions the original author or publisher had, what inherent slant or bias they may have followed etc. In the case of a governmental source for instance, policy considerations, such as a particular relationship that state has with another, may colour their reporting and lead them to be less objective than they might otherwise be. When examining the issue of who the author or publisher of the information is, consider also who funds the source and what the possible interests of the financiers might be. This may suggest to you the degree to which the source is able to maintain its impartiality and independence. Examine also the issue of the source’s capacity to establish knowledge on the topic at hand. WHAT? - Content covered by the source Ask yourself if the source is publishing a fact-finding mission report, a press release, an annual report on human rights practices, a news article or other kind of document, as the content will be dictated by the type of report it is. You’ll find that some sources focus their reporting on specific countries, regions or topics. Again, the issue of the source’s capacity to establish knowledge on the subject should be considered here. A good indicator of quality when it comes to content is whether the information contained in the report can be corroborated elsewhere. WHY? - Purpose of publication This is an important consideration as most reporting relating to human rights and asylum issues is not done solely for the sake of information provision. Instead, the bulk of reporting is done for one or more than one of the following reasons: · > To report to donors In order to establish the motivation behind the publication of something, try to find out more about the official mission and mandate of the publishing organisation. This will also help you to determine whether the issues chosen by a source reflect a particular and problematic bias on their behalf or just a deliberately limited scope of reporting. Also, take a look at the target group and audience of the publication. Is it the general public, a certain government, policy-makers, donors, human rights activists, UN Committees, courts, decision makers? Try to ensure that the information provided by a source is based on observable facts and does not derive from just their opinions or impressions. Be ever mindful of the possible hidden intentions of information producers: most human rights organisations are aware that getting the facts right enables them to do effective advocacy work, but there are still some organisations that use dramatic language and exaggerated claims in order to draw the public’s attention to human rights violations. WHEN? - Currency of the information The currency of information, how up-to-date it is, is an important element of good quality COI. A lot of COI is perishable; information on some subjects can go out of date very quickly as events in the country of origin unfold. Even yesterday’s newspaper article can come to be superseded by more immediate news of even more recent events! In other cases and with regard to other topics however, a report from three years ago might still be accurate. This can be especially true of information of an anthropological nature, for instance. Consider how up-to-date the information is at the time of publication as compared to when the information upon which the report is based was collected. For instance, in the case of fact-finding mission reports, the report itself can sometimes be published months or even years after the mission was completed. This is not to say that information in such reports is completely outdated and inaccurate, though it is advisable to reference both the date of publication and the date of the mission when referring to it in a decision or legal submission. HOW? - Methodology of information acquisition The research methodology utilised by a source can be an important indicator of its quality and reliability. Try to find out how the author/publisher has gathered the information and consider such factors as whether the author got the information firsthand or based his work on secondary sources, what kinds of secondary sources he used and their quality, how the author selected and cleared the information etc. Information on the reporting methodology used enables you to assess whether the source has an established knowledge base about a particular situation and whether the information has been carefully researched using a variety of sources. It is also valuable to examine the writing style of the source. Balanced and even-handed reporting is generally expressed in appropriate language. The language and style employed by a source can tell you a lot about its bias and standpoint. Now that we have outlined the main things to consider when assessing a source, it is time to consider how, in practical terms, you can go about establishing answers to these kinds of questions. 4. “About Us” The best place to begin to seek answers to the questions outlined above is to go to the homepage of the source you’re examining and look for an ‘About Us’ link. Many, though not all, sources will include an ‘About Us’ section and it usually contains information about the mandate of the organisation in question, how it is funded, how it collects information etc. It may also provide you with information about the individual people involved, such as senior personnel within the organisation or contributors to the website. The information contained in this section will therefore be invaluable to you in a practical sense when conducting a source assessment and so is often the first and best place to start your examination of a source. Illustration 1: The ‘About Us’ link on the Amnesty International website. In addition, many websites also now contain an ‘FAQ’ section. ‘FAQ’ is short for ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ and is the section of a website where information is offered in response to the questions that most regularly arise about the source and about the work it undertakes. As such, the information contained in this section will also be invaluable to you when conducting a source assessment.
Illustration 2: The links to the ‘About Us’ and ‘FAQ’ sections of the website of Forced Migration Online It is also advisable to look to see if the website contains a ‘Contact’ or ‘Contact Us’ link. If it does, it means you can submit any questions you may have to the source itself – a handy feature to have if the website does not contain all the information you need in the first place when doing an assessment. A source may be slow to respond to your message in some cases though, which may present a difficulty if you are operating under tight deadlines. The inclusion of an ‘About Us’, ‘FAQ’ and ‘Contact Us’ section on the website of a source is usually a good indicator of that source’s commitment to working in a transparent manner. Keep in mind however that the inclusion of such sections is not enough in itself to ensure that the source is reliable and appropriate to use in an RSD context. Rather, it is the information you’ll find there which will help you to answer the all important who, what, why, when and how questions and help you decide on the veracity of the source. Lastly, some websites will not contain any ‘About Us’, ‘FAQ’ or ‘Contact Us’ links and so will prove difficult to assess directly. You can try assessing such sources indirectly however, by simply conducting a search engine search to see what others are saying about it. This is a recommended approach when doing all source assessments anyway, but is especially appropriate in instances where the source itself does not appear to be forthcoming with information. 5. Identifying a dubious source All sources have an agenda, a focus or a bias particular to them, even those core sources which are universally consulted by us all when conducting COI research. Human Rights Watch is a good example of such a core source. This organisation focuses on the promotion, defence and protection of human rights and they advocate squarely from that perspective. They are still a reliable source of information however as they employ high standards in their reporting and do not let their particular bias colour the information they carry to such an extent that we could consider their version of the facts to be over-exaggerated or falsified for the sake of furthering their cause. Indeed, much of the factual information they carry can be verified elsewhere. So, even though we know Human Rights Watch have an agenda, an agenda which they make no secret of, we can still rely on them as a source of COI because of the quality of their reporting and their commitment to transparency. Dubious sources, which may take a number of different forms, tend to be the opposite of this. They tend to have little or no commitment to transparency and offer little or no information about themselves and how they work. At worst, they may consist merely of the subjective opinion of an individual who is not really qualified to provide a reliable assessment of the facts and who may not have even researched the issue at hand. Furthermore, said individual’s agenda or bias may colour his/her assessment to such a degree that it borders on fiction. Dubious sources, for the purposes of COI research, are therefore ones which contain material that is almost exclusively opinion-based, detrimentally coloured by the agenda or bias of the author, and/or poorly researched (if researched at all). Decision-makers, lawyers and COI researchers should seek to avoid such sources in their work. Instead, they should seek information from sources that report responsibly, that are well-researched and factually-based. 6. A note on Wikis and Blogs One of the more interesting Internet-related developments in the past number of years has been the emergence of ‘wikis’ and ‘blogs’ on the world wide web. Information from such sources is frequently returned when conducting a search engine search on specific COI topics, but RSD professionals have to take particular care when considering the use of any information from such sources. ‘Wikis’ are a web-page or collection of web-pages that enable anyone who accesses to create or modify the content contained there. Wiki is understood to be short for ‘What I Know Is’ and is collaborative by nature. Perhaps the best known example of a Wiki is Wikipedia. This is an interesting source to consider for the purposes of learning about source assessment. Wikipedia provides ample ‘About Us’ and background information and so is clearly committed to the kind of transparency that marks out a good source. However, when you consider how Wikipedia, in common with all Wikis, collects the information it carries, it becomes apparent that it is not suitable for use as a reliable source of COI. The reason for this is that potentially anyone, qualified or unqualified, knowledgeable about the subject or ill-informed, can make information available via Wikipedia. The information submitted may be accurate, and in many cases is, but RSD professionals cannot afford to rely on a source such as this to locate reliable COI given that the source may equally carry inaccurate, out-of-date, unreliable or false information. ‘Blogs’, short for web-logs, are another kind of information source which RSD professionals should approach with caution. They are usually maintained by individuals and take the form of an online diary or commentary. They are opinion-based in nature and the author of a particular blog may or may not be qualified or even knowledgeable about the subject he/she is writing about. BBC journalist Paul Reynolds, in a 2006 article on the subject of blogs, reflects upon the nature of this particular communication phenomenon: “Blogs do not really exist to provide people with the "news and information" they want on current affairs. They exist to agitate, to question, to swap information, to provide leads and opinions, and generally to act as guerrilla forces against the massed ranks of the mainstream media. [...] They are not about providing people with carefully sorted and sifted news.“ (Reynolds, Paul (2006) Blogs: To trust or not to trust?) Given the opinion-heavy nature of blogs therefore, and associated concerns about the authorship and quality of the information they carry, it is clear that such sources are generally not suitable for use as COI. 7. Reasons to be cheerful Thankfully, there are many circumstances during your routine COI research when you won’t need to be overly troubled by source assessment concerns. Your office or agency may have an approved list of sources or a database containing reports which are deemed appropriate for use as COI. If so, you can rest assured that the sources carried there have been checked from a quality perspective and so are safe for you to use without there being too pressing a need for assessment (though it is important that any such list is updated regularly and that the sources listed are monitored). The material made available through the Refugee Documentation Centre’s Electronic Library is likewise safe to use as the researchers here take great care in selecting information for inclusion from only the most reputable sources. The task of COI research free from concerns about the quality of the source is further made all the easier by the availability of the Internet’s two dedicated COI Portal websites: Ecoi.net and Refworld.
These are gateway websites for COI research and can be considered to be COI-specific search engines in their own right. Again, great care is taken in selecting appropriate documents and reports for inclusion on these websites. As such, you can generally take it for granted that the sources returned to you when you conduct a search on either portal are safe to use. Both portals are visibly mindful of source assessment concerns too, as both contain information about every source they select for inclusion. Of course, oversights and mistakes can happen from time to time and reports can be included on the databases and portals mentioned above that you may find reason to question. In such circumstances, conduct a routine source assessment of your own and contact the administrators of the database/portal to share your concerns. Conclusion During a training session, we generally finish the section on source assessment by reminding course participants that the act of doing COI research involves keeping an open mind. We advise them to keep an open mind about the search strategies they employ when looking for COI and about the sources they consult at the beginning of a search. In practice, this means that they should feel free to look at whatever source they think will help inform them about the research topic at hand, whether that source is known to them on not. Many experienced COI researchers, particularly if they’re working on a research topic they haven’t worked on before, will look at Wikipedia entries to get an overview of a situation and will examine the links to other sources contained at the end of an entry. These links may very well take them to more conventional and reliable sources on the subject which they can then explore and consider for use. As such, all sources are worth exploring during the research phase and source assessment concerns should not be seen as something which limits you in any way during this initial phase. Source assessment really comes into play at a later stage in the process, when you’ve gathered and sifted through the information and you’re preparing to draft that asylum decision, legal submission or COI query response. This is when you need to consider, critically and earnestly, the quality of the information you’ve found and the reliability of the sources you intend to use. When in doubt, assess the source, because the authority of the COI you use in your decision, legal submission or query response can only be as good as the sources you choose to rely on. References Books and articles: ACCORD (Austrian Red Cross)/COI Network (2004) Researching Country of Origin Information – A Training Manual Bradley, Phil (1999) The Advanced Internet Searcher’s Handbook Gyulai, Gabor (2007) Country Information in Asylum Procedures Reynolds, Paul (2006) Blogs: To trust or not to trust? BBC News (accessed on 18/02/09) Websites referred to: Amnesty International (Ireland) (accessed on 19/02/09) (accessed on 19/02/09) (accessed on 19/02/09) (accessed on 19/02/09) (accessed on 19/02/09) (accessed on 19/02/09) Statement by UNHCR The Court of Justice of the EC (ECJ) delivered on 17/02/09, its judgment in the Elgafagi case concerning the interpretation of Art. 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, in conjunction with Art. 2(e), regarding eligibility for subsidiary protection in cases of indiscriminate violence. This case is very significant as it is the first judgment of the ECJ addressing substantive international protection concepts, in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the EC asylum instruments. The decision relates to a preliminary reference from the Dutch Council of State, seeking a ruling from the court on the scope of article 15(c), which has raised difficult questions of interpretation of the concepts of individual threat and indiscriminate violence. Summary of key points The ECJ (Grand Chamber) ruled that Article 15(c) in conjunction with Article 2(e) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that: > There is no need for the applicant to demonstrate that he/she is individually or 'specifically' targeted in order to enjoy the protection of Art. 15(c); > The existence of the threat referred to in Art. 15(c) can exceptionally be established where the degree of indiscriminate violence characterising the armed conflict reaches 'such a high level that substantial grounds are shown for believing that a civilian, returned to the relevant country or, as the case may be, to the relevant region, would, solely on account of his presence on the territory of that country or region, face a real risk of being subject to that threat'. The main points of the judgment include: > a finding that Article 15(b) of the Directive corresponds, in essence, to Article 3 of the ECHR and by contrast, the content of Article 15(c) is different from that of Article 3 of the ECHR; > Confirmation of the need for an independent interpretation of Art. 15(c) - although this should be interpreted 'with due regard for fundamental rights, as they are guaranteed under the ECHR'. > The ECJ's interpretation refers to the Preamble (in particular the right to asylum enshrined in recital 10) and the core provisions of the Qualification Directive but no reference to or reliance on the drafting history of the Qualification Directive; > Comparison of the three types of ‘serious harm’ defined in Article 15 of the Directive to conclude that, while Art. 15(a) and (b) cover situations in which the applicant for SP is specifically exposed Article 15(c) covers a more general risk of harm; > Interpretation of the word ‘individual’ as covering harm to civilians 'irrespective of their identity', where the degree of indiscriminate violence reaches such a high level that a civilian, by his/her mere presence in the given area faces a real risk > Clarification that the situation of indiscriminate violence can be country wide but also localized in a specific region; > Interpretation of recital 26 of the Preamble as allowing - by the use of the word ‘normally’ - for the possibility of an exceptional situation which would be characterised by such a high degree of risk that substantial grounds would be shown for believing that that person would be subject individually to the risk in question (and by implication, finding that recital 26 does not serve to create a requirement to show or raise the threshold for specific targeting of an individual); > Clarification that the level of indiscriminate violence to be shown by the applicant will depend on the degree of individualization of the threat: the more the applicant is able to show that he is individually targeted 'the lower the level of indiscriminate violence required for him to be eligible for subsidiary protection'; > Different factors such as the possibility of an internal flight alternative (IFA) or the indication that the person has already been subject to serious harm, may be taken into account for the individual assessment of an application for subsidiary protection. The level of indiscriminate violence required for eligibility for subsidiary protection may be lower in light of such indication; > The interpretation of 15(c) is fully compatible with the ECHR, including the case-law of the ECtHR relating to Article 3 of the ECHR. In this regard the ECtHR refers explicitly to paragraph 115 of N.A. v UK where the ECtHR clarifies that a violation of Art. 3 may be found if a person is returned to a general situation of violence; > The domestic court has the obligation under EC law to seek to carry out an interpretation of national law consistent with the Qualification Directive even when it has been transposed after the facts giving rise to the dispute (which was the case in the Netherlands regarding the Elgafagi case). UNHCR's position Given the above, UNHCR considers the judgment to be generally positive although, in certain circumstances, the level of indiscriminate violence required to benefit from subsidiary protection under Art. 15(c) may be relatively high and difficult for applicants to demonstrate. In this respect, it is to be expected that updated and precise country of origin information will become even more important in the adjudicating of cases under this provision as interpreted by the European Court of Justice. UNHCR welcomes the guidance provided by the Court, which will assist States in the determination of asylum claims from people fleeing situations of indiscriminate violence. The Office expects that the decision will have an important positive impact on the interpretation of international refugee law in the EU context, as it helps to clarify a complex provision in the Qualification Directive. UNHCR's position was made public in January 2008 in a statement on the questions in issue in the case and is available here on the UNHCR website (also available via www.unhcr.org/eu). |
|
|