English

IX. Standard 4:Transparent Processing andCommunication of InformationSince COI is often a decisive factor in asylum procedures, it shouldbe made available for all parties involved therein, primarily – as aminimum standard – through a transparent and consistent systemof referencing. Original sources and reports should therefore beretrievable, and care should be taken that their content and meaningare not distorted in the process of paraphrasing or translating.Observing the above standard of transparency is a key factor to ensure legal security inrefugee status determination – closely related to the procedural norm of the equalityof arms – as it enables the asylum-seeker to have access to the information on thebasis of which her/his claim has been decided. In addition, it also serves the interestof processing authorities since well-referenced and retrievable COI constitutes much“stronger” supportive evidence in a possible appeal procedure. It should be emphasisedthat the results of COI research may be based on relevant questions and may reflecthigh methodological standards; these criteria remain uncontrollable without ensuringthe transparency of the information used.Applying a transparent method of processing and referencing COI (the latterincluding the source, title, date of information and eventually the period to which thesource refers, page/paragraph number, web link, etc.) has become a widely acceptednorm by COI professionals in their daily work. While summaries of research results,often in the national language of the asylum system, may be more user-friendly (or mayeven be required by the national legislation of a given country), care must be taken thatthe meaning of the original sources is not distorted in the process of paraphrasing ortranslating. In case of complex COI reports or summary query responses the originalsources used should be attached or otherwise made available; in order to allow theaccuracy of the summary to be checked or to look for more detailed information.Different EU member states’ practices vary to a considerable extent in respect oftransparency of country information. This divergence often reflects more general andlong-standing differences in administrative and judicial traditions, and as such, willhardly be subject to any immediate change.61