Presentation on theme: "COI (COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION) WORKING PARTY SESSION ON THURSDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 2011 entitled: “JUDICAL GUIDANCE ON COI: THE OLD AND THE NEW” (A) does."— Presentation transcript:
COI (COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION) WORKING PARTY SESSION ON THURSDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 2011 entitled: “JUDICAL GUIDANCE ON COI: THE OLD AND THE NEW” (A) does the IARLJ Checklist (Judicial Criteria for Assessing Country of Origin Information (COI): A Checklist) need revising? (B) is there a need for a supplementary Checklist dealing with due process/procedural fairness?
“ 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?”
EU PROCEDURES DIRECTIVE Requirements include the need to examine applications “individually, objectively and impartially” and the necessity to ensure that decision-makers have appropriate expertise. (Art 8). Article 8(2) (b) regulates “requirements for the examination of application” in the following way: “Member States shall ensure that decisions by the determining authority on applications for asylum are taken after an appropriate examination. To that end Member States shall ensure that precise and up-to date information is obtained from various sources, such as the UNHCR, as to the general situation prevailing in the countries of origin of applicants for asylum and, where necessary, in countries through which they have transited, and that such information is made available to the personnel responsible for examining applications and taking decisions.”
Accuracy, independence, reliability, objectivity, reputation, methodology, consistency, corroboration, diversity and human rights orientation (Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 143, ECHR 2008  ECHR 179 NA. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 120)” (para 23) Sufi and Elmi v UK, Applications nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, judgment of 28 June 2011).  ECHR 179
“ When assessing the weight to be attributed to country material, consideration must be given to its source, in particular its independence, reliability and objectivity. In respect of reports, the authority and reputation of the author, the seriousness of the investigations by means of which they were compiled, the consistency of their conclusions and their corroboration by other sources are all relevant considerations (Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 143
POSSIBLE PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS CRITERIA right to a fair hearing compliance with procedural rules principle of transparency duty to consult equality of arms duty to state facts accurately duty to keep designations under periodic review duty to give reasons misuse of power duty of human rights compliance Others??