CREDO Project IRC Dublin 09.11.2012 - Irish Refugee Council

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

CREDO project
• 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

CREDO project – 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

CREDO project – 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

CREDO project – 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”

• EU QD Art. 4 – Ctnd
Legal Framework
– 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 acceleration used to double as
behaviours potentially damaging to applicant’s
credibility in absence of reasonable explanation

CREDO project – 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
Gender with 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 coherent and 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 plausible and 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 position and personal
circumstances of 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 gender affect 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 gender relevant 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