Country of Origin Information
February 2023

Country of Origin
Information (COI)
Report Methodology

This document is a rebranded 2023 edition of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO)COI Report Methodology, June 2019. Methodology-related content is identical to the 2019
edition.
Neither the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) nor any person acting on behalf of the
EUAA is responsible for the use that might be made of the information contained within thispublication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023
PDF

ISBN 978-92-9400-461-1 doi: 10.2847/269310 BZ-07-22-858-EN-N© European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), February 2023
Cover photo/illustration: © Katie Sayer (Ksayer1) / Flickr, 2011; Adrian Scottow (ChodHound) /Flickr, 2011; Hugo Cardoso (hugojcardoso) / Flickr, 2011; Greg Nehring (sabertasche2) / Flickr,
2008
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. For any use or reproductionof photos or other material that is not under the EUAA copyright, permission must be sought
directly from the copyright holders.

COI REPORT METHODOLOGYContents
Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3
Preface to the 2023 edition................................................................................................ 5
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6
What is Country of Origin Information (COI)? ................................................................................... 6
EUAA’s role in COI..................................................................................................................................... 6
Target users ..................................................................................................................................................7
COI methodology........................................................................................................................................7
1.

Guiding principles for COI ....................................................................................... 8
1.1 Neutrality and Objectivity .................................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Relevance and Usability.................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Transparency and Publicity.............................................................................................................. 9
1.4 Validity and Quality ............................................................................................................................. 92.

Initiation process....................................................................................................10
2.1 Types of EUAA COI reports ........................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Terms of Reference (ToR).............................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Production process ............................................................................................................................113.

Researching and drafting COI................................................................................. 12
3.1 Sources and information..................................................................................................................133.1.1 Quality standards for sources and information.................................................13
3.1.2 Selection and validation of sources.....................................................................13
3.1.3 Selection and validation of information..............................................................16
3.1.4 Specific issues ............................................................................................................. 17
3.2 Presentation of information............................................................................................................193.2.1 Language.......................................................................................................................19
3.2.2 Synthesising information ........................................................................................19
3.2.3 Referencing ................................................................................................................23
3.2.4 Structure of EUAA COI reports............................................................................24

4.

Quality control....................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Review ................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Editing and proofreading............................................................................................................... 27

3

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

5.

Publication ............................................................................................................ 27

6.

Follow-up .............................................................................................................. 27

Annex 1: EUAA Rules for Review of COI Reports and Review Checklist ............................ 28
Annex 2: Glossary ............................................................................................................. 31

4

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

Preface to the 2023 edition
This document is a re-branded version of the European Union Asylum Support Office (EASO)2019 COI Report Methodology. The original version was published in June 2019.
On 19 January 2022, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) became the European
Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), which prompted the need to re-brand the 2019 EASO COI
Report Methodology and the 2019 EASO COI Writing and Referencing Guide to align with the
new EUAA visual identity. In this 2023 re-branded edition, references to ‘EASO’ have beenchanged to ‘EUAA’ where relevant, and introductory information relating to EUAA’s updated
mandate to provide COI information has been added.
All the core methodological content of the EASO COI Report Methodology (2019) remains
the same.
The EUAA COI Report Methodology (2023) can be downloaded from the EUAA COI Portal.

5

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Introduction
What is Country of Origin Information (COI)?
Country of Origin Information (COI) refers to information about countries of origin, habitualresidence, and transit or return countries used in procedures for the individual assessment ofapplications for international protection. COI may also be used in the context of non-asylum
related migration cases. COI aims to answer questions about countries of origin relating to, forexample, the socio-economic, legal, political, human rights, conflict, and humanitarian situation
at a given time.
COI facilitates and supports decision-making processes, but does not dictate decisions. It isdistinct from country guidance and legal assessments. COI constitutes evidence in theinternational protection procedure and is important to help make a fact-based assessment.

EUAA’s role in COI
In EUAA’s Regulation 1 the duties of the agency are described.
Article 9 relates to COI and states that EUAA shall be a centre for gathering relevant, reliable,
accurate and up-to date information on relevant third countries and for drafting reports on
third countries.
Additionally, EUAA is responsible for the development ‘of a common format and a common
methodology including terms of reference, in accordance with the requirements of Union law
on asylum, for developing reports and other documents with information on relevant third
countries at Union level’. Furthermore ‘To foster convergence in applying the assessment
criteria established in Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council2,
REGULATION (EU) No 2021/2303 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 December
2021 on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010. In the Regulation it isdefined that: ‘The Agency should ensure a more structured, up-to-date and streamlined production of information
on relevant third countries at Union level. The Agency should gather relevant information and draw up reports
providing for country information. For that purpose, the Agency should establish and manage European networks
on third-country information so as to avoid duplication and create synergies with national reports. It is necessarythat the third-country information refer, inter alia, to the political, religious and security situation and to violations ofhuman rights, including torture and ill-treatment, in the third country concerned.’ (recital 16) and that The Agency
should assist the Commission and should be able to assist the Member States by providing information andanalysis on third countries regarding the concept of safe country of origin and the concept of safe third country.
When providing such information and analysis the Agency should report to the European Parliament and to theCouncil in accordance with this Regulation’ (recital 18). In Article 2 it is set that one of the tasks of the Agency ‘(h)provide information and analysis on third countries regarding the concept of safe country of origin and the conceptof safe third country (the ‘safe country concepts’)’. In Article 9 on Information on third countries at Union level, it isforeseen that the Agency shall be a centre for gathering relevant, reliable, accurate and up-to date information on
third countries. It shall draw up and regularly update reports and other products, make use of all relevant sources of
information, develop a common format and a common methodology including terms of reference, in accordancewith the requirements of Union law on asylum, for developing reports and other documents with information on
relevant third countries at Union level. And finally, to foster convergence in applying the assessment criteria
established in Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Agency shall coordinate
efforts among Member States to develop a common analysis on the situation in specific countries of origin (the‘common analysis’) and guidance notes to assist Member States in the assessment of relevant applications forinternational protection.
2
Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for thequalification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform
status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted(OJ L 337, 20.12.2011, p. 9).
1

6

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

the Agency shall coordinate efforts among Member States to develop a common analysis on
the situation in specific countries of origin (the ‘common analysis’) and guidance notes toassist Member States in the assessment of relevant applications for international protection.’
In Article 47(5)(n) of the EUAA Regulation, EUAA’s Executive Director is made responsible forthe drafting of reports on the situation in third countries.
For EUAA, the production of COI is an important tool in the practical cooperation with andbetween EU+ countries.

Target users
In line with its mandate, EUAA’s target users for COI reports include case workers, COI
researchers, and policy-makers in national determining authorities; courts and tribunals
responsible for examining and assessing applications for international protection; as well as
EU Institutions, bodies and agencies.

COI methodology
The EUAA COI Report Methodology builds on the Common EU Guidelines for processing COI(April 2008), the EU common guidelines on (Joint) Fact Finding Missions (November 2010) (fororal sources), and the ACCORD Training Manual: Researching Country of Origin Information(2013 Edition).
This methodology is a public document and was developed for the purpose of producing andpublishing different types of EUAA COI reports. The use of this methodology is binding for
EUAA COI reports. While the EUAA COI Report Methodology first of all intends to support thedevelopment of EU-level COI, EU countries may wish to extend its application also to national
COI products.
The first version of this COI report methodology was published in June 2012 shortly after thecreation of the then European Asylum Support Office (EASO). Over time, EASO identified theneed to clarify certain concepts and revise the methodology. A working group was formed in2017 by EASO composed of COI experts from 7 EU countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark,France, Germany, Slovak Republic, Sweden), who discussed the key issues and provided
input for the revision.
Following consultations with practitioners from the EU+ countries, international organisations,and civil society, the revised methodology was finalised and endorsed by the EASOManagement Board on 29 May 2019 and the EASO COI Report Methodology was published inJune 2019. The EASO COI methodology has been in use across the EU+ and referenced
internationally since June 2019.
In 2023, with the creation on the EUAA, both the COI Report Methodology and the COI
Writing and Referencing Guide were re-launched with a new EUAA visual identity.

7

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

1. Guiding principles for COI
The production of EUAA COI reports within the framework of a standardised process aims toguarantee the overall quality and acceptance by the target users.
The following guiding principles constitute a code of conduct for participants in each phase of
the COI production process: initiation; research (selection and validation of sources andinformation); drafting (presentation of information); quality review; and publication. They aredefined and illustrated with examples below. In each phase of this process, EUAA aims tocooperate with EU+ countries in order to meet target users’ needs and share the burden
through joint efforts to produce COI.

1.1 Neutrality and Objectivity
COI should be produced in a neutral manner without seeking to favour a particular outcome orconclusion. Those involved in the production process shall act impartially with regard toanyone’s interest.
Objectivity is the quality of being fact-based and not influenced by emotions, speculation,
personal or group-based prejudices, interests, or biases. COI should aim for the highest
degree of objectivity possible.
Examples of the application of the principles of neutrality and objectivity include:(1) developing the terms of reference by examining different relevant sides of the defined topic
without prioritising one side in order to manipulate the findings of the research;(2) aiming at consulting a well-balanced range of sources in order to reflect different
perspectives;(3) using a neutral tone in language.
These and other examples are further elaborated on in the respective chapters on the
different production phases.

1.2 Relevance and Usability
Relevance means the quality of being closely connected to the fact, event, or matter inquestion. COI should be relevant for the needs of the target users, mostly for the assessmentof international protection needs.
Usability refers to the ease of use. In this regard, the language of the report should be guided
by the target users. The same applies to the structure of the report which should be logicaland clearly organised. Terminology used by sources and in the EUAA COI report should beclearly explained.
Examples of the application of these principles include:(1) basing the terms of reference on questions rooted in legal concepts of refugee and humanrights law or related to material facts in the caseload;(2) avoiding an abundance of background information and selecting only time-relevant
information;

8

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY(3) taking into account that target users may not be native speakers and therefore using plain
and clear language.
These and other examples are further elaborated on in the respective chapters on the
different production phases.

1.3 Transparency and Publicity
Transparency refers to the quality of being clear and open about the methods for how
research decisions were made, information was obtained, assessed, and presented.
Examples of the application of these principles include:(1) adequate and visible terms of reference, an introduction and a disclaimer explaining how,why, and for whom the report was drafted;(2) making every piece of information traceable to the original/primary source;(3) making EUAA COI reports publicly accessible on the EUAA COI Portal, in order toguarantee equal access to information.
These and other examples are further elaborated on in the respective chapters on the
different production phases.

1.4 Validity and Quality
Validity is the quality of being acceptable in meeting the needs of the target users and ofbeing methodologically, logically and factually sound. This is done through guaranteeing
quality standards and cross-checking information as explained in the relevant section of thismethodology and ultimately by implementing a 4. Quality control mechanism.

9EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

2. Initiation process
The initiation or update of EUAA COI reports may be triggered by EUAA’s Strategic COI
Network members, COI Specialist Network members 3, the Council of the EU, the European
Commission or the European Parliament.
EUAA can also initiate reports itself to meet COI needs identified in EUAA’s mandate and work
programme related to: Practical Cooperation; Country Guidance; Asylum Support; Training;
Operational Support; and External Dimension activities.
EUAA has set up a standardised country and content determination procedure, which includes
generating and reviewing quantitative and qualitative data, aimed at identifying theinformation needs of the defined target users. A two-layer approach is chosen for thedetermination of the most relevant countries of origin at the European level. First, EUAA
considers quantitative data on caseload and decision rates. Second, the above-mentioned
stakeholders provide input and identify specific COI priorities and needs. Once the country oforigin and the topic of a COI report have been determined, the terms of reference (ToR) aredefined.

2.1 Types of EUAA COI reports
EUAA has developed three types of COI reports:
1. Country Overview reports provide an overview of a wide range of topics relevant forinternational protection considerations on the country of origin.
2. Country Focus reports provide information on a selection of specific topics relevant forinternational protection considerations. The range of topics is less comprehensive thanthose in the Country Overview reports.
3. Topical reports provide information on one specific topic in a country or region.
This list is not exhaustive and other types of COI reports may be developed in the applicationof this report methodology.

2.2 Terms of Reference (ToR)
The terms of reference (ToR) are the framework and the backbone of the report. They containthe general topics as well as subtopics or research questions that should be addressed in thereport. The ToR aim to address the information needs of the target users. EUAA defines the
ToR in cooperation with the participants in the production process taking into account input
from COI Specialist Networks and/or target users.
The report should be consistent with the key elements of the ToR, unless it is clearly
explained in the introduction why certain topics could not be included. For the sake oftransparency, the ToR are added as an annex to the report.

3

EUAA established COI Specialist Networks composed of national COI specialists from EU+ countries.
10

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

2.3 Production process
The EUAA production process for COI reports includes five phases: 1/ preparation; 2/
researching; 3/ drafting; 4/ quality control; and 5/ publication.
In the preparatory phase, tasks and timeframes for each phase are set in consultation withparticipants in the production process. If the COI supports a particular process or activity (e.g.
development of Country Guidance, delivery of operational support, etc.), the timeframesshould be aligned with the deadlines or delivery date of that process or activity. EUAA
finalises the agreed timeframes in a roadmap or a plan for the production which iscommunicated to the participants. Where (co-)drafters and reviewers are COI researchers fromnational COI units, their involvement in the process shall be explicitly approved by theirnational head of unit.
In the researching and drafting phases, EUAA may work in the following ways, or in a
combination thereof:
Joint production: In this case, usually within the framework of a COI Specialist Network,
participant(s) and EUAA agree to take up roles in a joint drafting process; EUAA will selectindividual participant(s) for co-drafting the report. Participants should have proven solid
COI research skills and a good level of knowledge of the relevant country of origin.
Europeanisation: In this case, EUAA agrees to publish a national COI report offered by an
EU+ country as an EUAA product. If the national COI report requires updating or does not
fully cover all identified information needs, the information in this report may becomplemented by some additional research.
In-house drafting: EUAA itself can draft COI reports when internal capacity and expertiseon a given country of origin and/or topic are available.
Outsourcing: When EU+ or EUAA capacity or expertise is not available, EUAA may
outsource the production of a COI report to an external COI service provider.
In the quality control phase, a peer review is performed by COI researchers from EU+
countries and EUAA, following specific guidelines. In addition, the report may be submitted fora quality review to UNHCR, and/or other external experts together with specific guidelines forthe review. EUAA organises editing and proofreading. EUAA performs a final review of thecontent of the report before publication.
In the publication phase, EUAA publishes the reports via the EUAA COI Portal and announces
the publication on its website with a press release.

11

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

3. Researching and drafting COI
The production of EUAA COI reports involves an analytical process which starts at the
preparatory phase and is governed by the Guiding principles for COI outlined above. Analysis
is the neutral evaluation of an issue or problem, usually made by breaking it down into its
constituent parts, organising and describing these parts, and identifying their interrelationships.
The COI analytical process underlies the whole research cycle and involves developing termsof reference and appropriate research questions, conducting research, selecting andvalidating sources and information, evaluating information and determining linkages between
information gathered, and presenting a synthesised, logically organised report on the results.

Stages in the COI analytical process> Decide which topic, subtopics and research questions need to be addressed.
> Define the ToR and structure of a COI report, by breaking down the topic(s) into
constituent parts.
> Carry out research in accordance with the ToR. Deviations from the ToR and the reasonsfor that should be clearly explained in the introduction.
> Decide on research strategies and identify relevant sources and information for the topic.
> Evaluate sources and information against quality standards.
> Throughout the research, apply critical analysis skills to select relevant information,
validate information, and understand linkages between elements in a topic.
> Decide how to present the information, by analysing and organising it further by topics
and subtopics.
> Synthesise information into a logically organised, cohesive final report that reflects the
ToR.

12

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

3.1 Sources and information
It is important to keep a detailed record of all sources and information gathered, particularly
when using anonymous sources. This should guarantee robust and transparent COI and will
ensure that if the information contained in the report is challenged, EUAA can demonstrate
the accuracy and integrity of the research process and the information obtained.

3.1.1 Quality standards for sources and information
All sources and the information they provide are selected, assessed and validated against thefollowing COI quality standards:

Relevance
Reliability
Objectivity
Accuracy
Currency
Traceability
Transparency

Relevance means the quality of being closely connected to the fact,
event, or matter in question
Reliability means the quality of being trustworthy to the matter, fact orevent.
Objectivity means the quality of being fact-based and not influenced byemotions, speculation, personal or group-based prejudices, interests orbiases.
Accuracy means the quality of being precise, undistorted, and in
conformity with the factual reality.
Currency means that information is time-relevant, up-to-date and/or themost recent information available.
Traceability means the extent to which the primary and/or original sourceof a piece of information can be identified.
Transparency is the quality of being clear, intelligible, and unequivocal.

It is not possible to order these criteria into a hierarchy. Their degree of importance depends
on the topics being researched. If some of these criteria are not met this does not mean thatthe information cannot be used. For instance, the objectivity of the information is generally
considered to be very important. However, in certain cases subjective or partial information
may be used if other quality standards are met, but it would be necessary to indicate this bias.
The ways to guarantee these quality standards are explained in the following sections.

3.1.2 Selection and validation of sources
Definition of sources
For the purpose of this methodology, sources are defined as follows.
A source is a medium, person or institution producing information:•

A primary source is closely or directly related to (i.e. having first-hand informationof) an event, fact, or matter.

•An original source documents the event, fact or matter for the first time. The
original source can also be the primary source.
13

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM•

A secondary source reproduces or refers to information from the original source(or other secondary sources).

Example 1:
An eyewitness to an event who is interviewed by COI unit (A) is the primary source. The
COI unit (A) who drafts a report using the interview with the eye-witness is the original
source. Another COI unit (B) quoting the COI unit’s (A) report is a secondary source.
In a COI report, reference is made to the COI unit’s (A) report, as the eyewitness is notdirectly accessible to other COI researchers.

Source assessment
Many sources may provide information that can be relevant to the international protection
procedure. This means that sources should not be excluded without further consideration andassessment.
Source assessment is the process of thoroughly and critically evaluating a source against thementioned quality standards, by way of asking the following questions:
Who is providing the information? Is this clear or is the source anonymous? What istheir reputation? Does the source have specific knowledge that makes them an‘expert’ on the issue at hand? Does the source have a known bias? What is the context
in which the source operates?
What information is provided? What is the real content/substance of the information
produced? To what extent is it fact-based and documented? Is it delivered
independently of the motivation of the source?
Why are they providing this information? What is the agenda or mandate of thesource? Does the source have a specific interest?
How is the information presented? How is it formulated? Is the material presented in
an objective and transparent way? Is it clear what research methods are used? How is
the information gathered by the source?
When was the information gathered and when was it provided?
All sources should be assessed and validated as per the above-mentioned questions. Sourcesthat are well known to the target users usually do not need a description (e.g. United Nations,
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International), unless there is a specific reason to highlight thesource assessment against quality standards. . Sources which may not be well known, such as
academic experts or local organisations, require a more elaborate description.
Preference for primary/original sources
Where possible, the drafter should refer to the primary source. Otherwise, every effort should
be made to refer to the original source. This will help to avoid round tripping (see glossary),
false corroboration and misquoting of information. It should be borne in mind that primarysources may inadvertently or intentionally provide false information, for instance due to14

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

language/translation problems or to political opinions. Therefore, even information provided
by original/primary sources must be assessed.
Where need arises and where possible, additional primary sources should be consulted
directly. For example, interviews by telephone/Skype, email, or during a fact-finding mission.
Use of multiple and various sources
In general, it is important to search for as wide a range of sources as possible which reflect
different viewpoints (e.g. governmental, media, international organisations, NGOs), as this will
help to ensure a balance of information is obtained and presented in the report.
Reference is made to the section on cross-checking and corroboration of information.
Use of public sources versus anonymous sources
As a general rule sources of information used in the report should be named and publicly
accessible. However, there may be situations where this is not possible, for instance where a
primary source has been contacted directly and their personal security may be put at risk by
publication of their details. The safety of the source should always be the first consideration.
In some cases, it may be possible to cite the name of the organisation the person represents.
Some sources may not wish to be named or linked to a particular organisation. If a source
wishes to be referred to anonymously this can be done by describing to the extent possible
the type and background of the source, e.g. its position/role/title, mandate, reputation andexperience, methodologies used, and operational presence/reporting capacity.
As COI units of EU+ countries follow research best practice as set out in the Common EU
Guidelines for Processing Country of Origin Information (COI) and the EU Common Guidelineson (Joint) Fact Finding Missions, reports of those units can be used as original sources where
the primary source is anonymous.
No hierarchy of sources
It is not possible to establish a hierarchy of sources, as it is not possible to state that individual
sources will always be more reliable or useful than others. Some sources (e.g. internationalorganisations and NGOs) may be more valuable for information on the general human rights
situation, whereas other sources (e.g. national or local news agencies or experts) may be
more valuable for information on particular events. Sources found to provide inaccurate or
unreliable information on one subject may provide valuable information on another.
Social media
Social media are web applications for the creation of online communities to share content, toexchange and express ideas and opinions. Examples of social media include social
networking sites (Facebook, LinkedIn); weblogs; microblogs (Twitter); wikis (Wikipedia);filesharing sites (Youtube, Flickr); location-based services (e.g. Panoramio, Wikimapia); etc.
Because this content can be user-generated, and because of the speed of the communicationor content, particular care must be taken to ensure that any source on social media isassessed following the quality standards described above.
Content available on social media accounts is often not submitted to the same research rigour
and editorial process as established media or other sources. Therefore, the risk may be higherthat content is inaccurate, biased, intentionally misleading, or dubious. For this reason, cross-15

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

checking of information found via social media accounts isvery important. Also the identification of the source
reporting via social media accounts requires particularattention and different methods are available on different
platforms, for example, verified accounts on
Facebook and Twitter indicated with √.

3.1.3 Selection and validation of information
The information used from sources must be validated against the quality standards mentioned
above. Validation of the information can be done by way of scrutinising the origin of
information provided by every source, and by way of cross-checking, corroborating andbalancing the information with information of other sources.
Cross-checking involves checking a range of different sources to test whether different
and unrelated sources report similar or different information about a fact/issue/topic.
Cross-checking is a means to corroborate or contrast information.
Corroborating information supports or strengthens the accuracy and reliability of
information by finding matching information from multiple and different kinds of sources
with accounts of what occurred that are independent of one another.
For example, cross-checking involves comparing different reporting on an issue, such asaccounts by governmental, media and NGO sources, who may corroborate the same
number of casualties in an attack.
Care should be taken to avoid the danger of round tripping of information and false
corroboration. If a source is not transparent about the origin of its information, it can bedifficult to identify false corroboration and round tripping.
Round tripping occurs when secondary sources cite each other instead of referring to theoriginal/primary source. Failure to identify round tripping can lead to the use of
information that may not be as current as it seems, or to distortion of the information.

Example 2:
A human rights report (2004) is used in a government report (2005) which is subsequently
quoted by a newspaper (2006). A COI report referring to the 2006 newspaper article but
not identifying the 2004 human rights report would be an example of failure to identify
round tripping of information.

False corroboration occurs when a piece of information appears to be corroborated byinformation from different sources while in fact the information stems from the same
primary/original source.

16

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

In the example above, if the COI report would refer to the human rights report and thegovernment report to corroborate the newspaper article of 2006, that would be an
example of false corroboration. Another example of false corroboration is when a COI
report uses two different newspaper articles to corroborate an incident, while they bothrefer to content from one and the same media agency (for example AFP, Reuters).
The need to cross-check and corroborate information depends on the nature of theinformation and the sources. The need is especially strong in certain cases:••••

when it concerns a core matter in an application for international protection or a coreresearch question
when describing a major trend or a significant situation
when the information does not fulfil some of the abovementioned quality criteria
when information stems from anonymous sources.

For other kinds of information, this need is lower or not required, such as for information
concerning:••

an obvious fact (e.g. London is the capital of the UK; Saddam Hussein was Presidentof Iraq)
illustrative events, facts or incidents that serve to corroborate a more general trend ordevelopment described by more general human rights sources. In this case, it is notalways necessary to cross-check each incident.

Example 3:
If an attack by insurgents in a certain village in the summer of 2017 belongs to the coreof a claim for international protection, then there is a strong need to cross-check theinformation found about this attack.
However, if the same attack is used in a larger report on the security situation and ispresented in a chronology to illustrate the general trend of insurgent attacks in 2017,
there is less or no need to corroborate each single event.

3.1.4 Specific issues
If information is found from only a single source
If information from only one source can be found, and the information is of a kind that requires
cross-checking and corroboration (see chapter on selection and validation of information), thecontext of that source should be assessed, such as:•

whether the country and/or the subject is generally widely reported on or not;•whether the country has an active and free press;•

whether censorship or self-censorship takes place;17

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM•

whether the source in question is uniquely placed to document the information at
hand.

The fact that only one source could be found should in this case be stated in the report. The
source should be briefly described, and the context explained accounting for the above
elements. Other sources consulted can be mentioned if necessary.
If no information can be foundIf no information is found (e.g. as to the question of whether a certain event took place) thisdoes not necessarily mean that an event/person/issue did not /or does not occur or exist. The
lack of information should be stated, referring to the main sources consulted. This will assist
the reader in understanding the context and deciding what weight can be attached to the lackof information.
If contradictory information is found
Relevant and contradictory information on a certain subject should be presented together inthe report. The source assessment should be explicitly presented in the report in order toassist the reader in assigning weight to such information.
If information from a ‘dubious’ source is foundAlthough all sources have their own values and agenda, a source is deemed dubious when it
cannot be assessed as reliable, for reasons of:1.

a lack of transparency on the source’s agenda, reputation, operational presence in thefield, reporting capacity, seriousness of investigations, and level of knowledge.

Example 4:
The reliability of Wikipedia is widely discussed because the information can be altered byanyone who wishes to do so. It is often unclear who is the source, what is its expertise,
and why the information is added.
2.

bias, meaning a source presents highly selective or distorted information to advanceits agenda.

Example 5:
An insurgent group regularly reports on armed confrontations. While their information on
the occurrence of the incidents is factual, their reporting on the number of casualties on
the government side is exaggerated and minimised on their side. This bias propagatesthem as the winning party.

18

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

The researcher must weigh the relevance of the information against the dubiousness of thesource to decide whether or not to include it in the report. If the information is included, thereasons why the source could not be deemed reliable should be stated explicitly.
Information that is not fact-based and deliberately fabricated with the intention to misleadand harm (often referred to as ‘fake news’) should not be used.

3.2 Presentation of information
Quality standards for sources and information equally apply for the presentation of information
in a COI report, as explained in this section. For example, the synthesis should accuratelyreflect what sources stated and be clearly referenced for transparency.
All EUAA COI reports should conform to EUAA’s overall stylistic requirements and standards
for language, citation, referencing and style (see EUAA COI Writing and Referencing Guide).

3.2.1 Language
The EUAA COI report should use plain language, bearing in mind that target users may not be
native readers. The language should be clear, exact and neutral in tone. Terminology, spelling
and transcription standards used in the report should be indicated and explained. Legalterminology related to international protection procedures should be avoided.
To avoid confusion, the names of persons and organisations should be mentioned in theoriginal language and/or transcribed in the same way throughout the report. Abbreviations,
technical terms or names/concepts in other languages should be written out in full andexplained when used for the first time in the report. A cross-link can be made to the glossary
and abbreviations section.
If the presented information from a source reflects an assessment, feeling or opinion of thatsource, this should be clearly indicated and attributed to the source (e.g. the source assesses,
concludes, gives the opinion, etc).

3.2.2 Synthesising information
A COI report should clearly present relevant and readily accessible COI. The approach for thepresentation of information in EUAA COI reports is by ‘synthesising’ the relevant information.
Information is synthesised for optimal readability and usability to assist the target users to
draw informed conclusions relevant to their tasks. Synthesising means organising, combining
and grouping information together thematically to form a coherent whole, instead of listing or
quoting information source by source.
The synthesis reflects the analytical COI process and its components, namely the structuringof the content and the sorting of information along this structure, the source assessment andvalidation of information, including cross-checking of information. The drafter synthesises
similar statements found in sources, presenting corroborating or contradictory information
together, and makes the comparison clear for the reader.

19EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Synthesis can occur at the level of the report, chapter, section, paragraph and sentence. For
further information on writing techniques for synthesising, refer to the EUAA COI Writing andReferencing Guide.

Example 6:
A research question in the ToR of a COI report is about how insurgents recruit fighters.
The COI researcher analyses this matter and breaks it down into different relevant
elements, including the structure and general modus operandi of the insurgent group,
actual recruitment mechanisms, incentives, etc.
Below, some information and elements are lifted out to illustrate how to synthesise theinformation.

20

COI REPORT METHODOLOGYINFORMATION - The researcher finds the following information from sources A-F:
Source A The insurgents’ organisation has different hierarchical layers, including aleadership council, a military and other commissions, provincial commissions,district commissions, provincial and district chiefs, and military fronts (squads)
headed by local commanders. […] The insurgents often recruit fighters in village
madrassas among the religious students or by local mullahs in religious networks.
Source B The insurgents aim to co-opt community leaders, local strongmen, mullahs orcommanders to join their ranks. […] Recruitment of fighters happens via the local
commanders or village elders who are responsible for the local military fronts.
The insurgents can rely on allied tribal or village leaders and allied strongmen
who have networks in an area.
Source C The insurgents have one leadership council and different overarchingcommissions, including a military commission. At the lowest military level, local
commanders lead fronts of fighters. […] For recruitment of fighters, the insurgents
rely on clan and tribal loyalty. Normally, the local operational cell or commander
is the base of the recruitment. Religious leaders and madrassas can also play arole in recruiting young men as fighters.
Source D A leadership council leads the insurgency, which also has specialisedcommissions for military, educational, and economic affairs. District chiefs,
commissions and commanders also exist. […] Mobilisation of fighters has to be
distinguished between community mobilisation and recruitment of individuals.
For the community mobilisation, insurgents seek the buy-in of village or clanelders, local strongmen etc. The recruitment of individual fighters usually
happens by the local commander or strongman.
Source E A 22 year-old man from the district of X testified about his enrolment in theinsurgents’ ranks. He was the sole breadwinner of the family and two friends
introduced him to the local insurgent commander, from a nearby village.
Source F A local farmer in the village of Y has three sons, of which one joined the local
militia established by the village community elders for the protection of theircrops and interests in the volatile environment of the decade-long conflict. A few
years ago, the tribal elders decided to join the insurgency and the tribe’s local
commanders pledged allegiance to the insurgents’ leader.

SYNTHESISThe insurgents are hierarchically organised in different layers, starting with a ‘leadershipcouncil’, several specialised commissions and local structures (sources A, C and D). Tworeports gave examples of recruitment of fighters via village madrassas and mullahs(sources A and C). Different sources indicate that recruitment of fighters usually happens
via local commanders (sources B, C, D, E). The role of local clan, tribal or community elders
in joining the insurgency or recruitment is also mentioned by sources (sources B, C, D, F).

21

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

COI Conclusions
Depending on the nature of the information and the relevance for the target users, COI
conclusions may be drawn by the drafter. COI conclusions aim to highlight main patterns in
the analysed and validated information in order to assist the target users in drawing informed
conclusions relevant to their tasks.
A COI conclusion is a reasoned and consolidated evaluation of a particular event, matter orsituation based on sources’ combined information. It should take into account all relevant
parameters, as well as their mutual interdependence and individual importance relative to thewhole. A COI conclusion constitutes a ‘new piece of information’, compared to the information
provided by the sources: A + B + C = D. D is the COI conclusion.
When drawing COI conclusions, caution should be taken to avoid distorting information.
COI conclusions cannot include legal assessments, policy or decision guidance. To ensure
this, the following limitations apply:
Separate
Country of origin

General pattern

No speculation

No opinion
No legalterminology

It should be pointed out clearly which conclusions are attributed to thedrafter.
The scope of the COI conclusion is focussed on an event, matter orsituation in the country of origin, and does not focus on the individual
situation of the applicant.
COI conclusions should concern general patterns in the information
related to an event, matter or situation within the country of origin.
However, they should refrain from overgeneralisation and beformulated in a way that leaves room for deviation, exceptions,individual circumstances and situations that might take place in acontext different from the general situation.
COI conclusions should refrain from speculation, which is theformulation of a theory without sound evidence to support. A COI
conclusion should be based on the synthesised and referenced
information in the COI report.
COI conclusions are a reasoned evaluation and not an opinion of thedrafter.
COI conclusions cannot include any recommendations on how tointerpret or process the analysed information in a legal way. To ensure
this, the language should not include legal terminology concerninginternational protection.

22

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

In example 7, a COI conclusion is given that stays close to the information from the sources:

Example 7:
Several sources provided the following corroborated information:
In 2014, the armed conflict caused around 100 civilian casualties.
In 2015, the armed conflict caused around 300 civilian casualties.
In 2016, the armed conflict caused around 500 civilian casualties.
In 2017, the armed conflict caused around 800 civilian casualties.
Based on this information, EUAA concludes that during the past few years, thecivilian toll caused by the armed conflict steadily increased.
This is a COI conclusion because the description of the trend is a new piece of
information, since the individual pieces of information from sources only provided
numbers of casualties per year, but did not indicate the trend.

Based upon example 6 on synthesised information, the following COI conclusion can be
drawn (example 8):

Example 8:
COI CONCLUSION
From the information, EUAA concludes that recruitment of fighters by the insurgent
usually happens via local community, military or religious structures.
This is a COI conclusion, because EUAA deducts this general pattern from thedifferent examples found in sources, because there is no contradicting informationand none of the different pieces of information describe the pattern as such.
Therefore, it constitutes a new piece of information.

3.2.3 Referencing
As a minimum requirement, every piece of information must be referenced by one source,
preferably the primary/original source (see section on selection of sources). References tosources are given as footnotes and appear on the same page as the text they refer to. All
sources used in the report must be fully referenced in a bibliography in a standardised way.

23

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

For guidance on referencing, see the EUAA COI Writing and Referencing Guide. All materials
used in the EUAA COI report should respect general rules on copyright.4

3.2.4 Structure of EUAA COI reports
EUAA COI reports are organised in a manner consistent with the key elements of the ToR andin a way which makes the information easily accessible and readable for the target users. The
report should be presented in a logical, well-structured and intelligible way.
The content of sections and chapters should be reflected in the headings and sub-headings,
and the individual paragraphs should be framed in a consistent and clear manner containing
information grouped thematically.
For the general lay-out and structure of an EUAA COI report, see the EUAA COI Report
Template.
The general structure of an EUAA COI report contains the following parts:
Acknowledgements
The COI units, organisations and experts which participated in researching, (co-)drafting, orreviewing the EUAA COI report are mentioned in the acknowledgements section of the report.
Table of contents
The table of contents provides the main headings and sub-headings in order to efficiently
guide the reader through the report.

See: Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation ofcertain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10–19) and can beaccessed via Eur-Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN /ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32001L0029

424

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

Disclaimer
The Disclaimer states the following:This report was written according to the EUAA COI Report Methodology (2023).
The report is based on carefully selected sources of information. All sources used
are referenced.
The information contained in this report has been researched, evaluated andanalysed with utmost care within a limited timeframe. However, this document
does not claim to be exhaustive. If a particular event, person or organisation is not
mentioned in the report, this does not mean that the event has not taken place orthat the person or organisation does not exist. Any event taking place after the
finalisation of this report is not included. More information on the reference period
for this report can be found in the introduction.
Furthermore, this report is not conclusive as to the determination or merit of any
particular application for international protection. Terminology used should not be
regarded as indicative of a particular legal position.
‘Refugee’, ‘risk’ and similar terminology are used as generic terminology and not in
the legal sense as applied in the EU Asylum Acquis, the 1951 Refugee Convention
and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.
Neither EUAA nor any person acting on its behalf may be held responsible for theuse which may be made of the information contained in this report.
On 19 January 2022, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) became theEuropean Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA). All references to EASO, EASO
products and bodies should be understood as references to the EUAA.

Glossary and abbreviations
The glossary lists uncommon, specialised or original-language terms or concepts with theirdefinitions, in alphabetical order. Acronyms/abbreviations that are necessary forunderstanding the content should be listed in the glossary (e.g. ANSF – Afghan National
Security Forces, VBIED – Vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. However, abbreviatedsources that are listed in the bibliography do not need to be included in the glossary (e.g., UN,
IOM, etc). The glossary is placed at the beginning of the report.

25

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Introduction
The introduction clearly states that the report is produced in line with the EUAA COI report
methodology (2023) and the EUAA COI Writing and Referencing guide (2023). The
introduction further states the purpose of the report, target users and the main topics dealt
with, based on the ToR in the annex of the report.
In order to maintain a high level of transparency, the introduction explains in detail themethodology used in the specific report. This includes how the ToR were defined, whether
they were expanded, or certain topics could not be addressed in the report. The methodology
further describes how information was collected and, if relevant, highlights and explains
important sources used in the report. The different use of terminology by different sources
should be explained. Finally, the quality control mechanism and the date of finalisation are
mentioned.
The introduction gives information on the reference period(s) for information in the report, theperiod of research, drafting, and review process.
Body of the report
In the body of the report, the analysed and synthesised information found during the research
process is presented. It may include an executive summary or COI conclusions depending on
the nature of the information and the relevance for the target users.
Annexes
Annex I: Bibliography
All sources referred to in the report should be fully referenced in the bibliography. For
guidance on referencing sources in the bibliography, see the EUAA COI Report Writing
and Referencing Guide.
Annex II: Terms of Reference

26

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

4. Quality control
4.1 Review
For every COI report, EUAA organises a peer review process by national and EUAA COI
researchers. Peer review is a quality assurance and enhancement process in which thedrafter(s) and peer(s) work together to ensure that the report meets the principles and quality
standards set out in the EUAA COI report methodology. Reviewers do not change or ‘approve’the content of the report, but they contribute to the quality of the report by way ofcommenting on content or quality issues, checking sources and suggesting additional
information. Reviewers are required to follow the EUAA rules for review.
In consultation with national (co-)drafters, EUAA may select external experts to review thereport in line with the EUAA COI report methodology and rules for peer review. The external
experts are selected on the basis of their proven expertise in COI methodology, knowledge ofthe country of origin or specific topics. Such experts may include NGOs, academics, andinternational bodies.
All comments by reviewers are taken into consideration. However, the (co-)drafter(s) decide(s)whether or not a comment is accepted and how to address it. EUAA supervises andparticipates throughout the review process.
It is good practice to consult and give feedback to the reviewers, addressing why comments
may or may not have been implemented. As a result of the review, additional information andsources may need to be added to improve the quality of the report. If such additional
information substantially changes the content of the report, the reviewers will be informed.

4.2 Editing and proofreading
After the review, EUAA arranges editing and proofreading of the COI report in conformity with
the EUAA COI Writing and Referencing Guide. EUAA also ensures that copyrights are properly
dealt with.

5. Publication

EUAA takes responsibility for the report and gives final approval for publication anddissemination. Translations of EUAA COI reports are considered official only if carried out
directly by EUAA or approved by it. No other translations will carry EUAA’s endorsement.

6. Follow up
Evaluation of the drafting process should be done by the participants. The target users areinvited to evaluate the use of the report. Feedback is taken into consideration when initiatinga new EUAA COI report. EUAA aims to update its COI reports when necessary within asuitable period of time. For the initiation of updates, see also the initiation process.
27

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Annex 1: EUAA Rules for Review of
COI Reports and Review Checklist
1. The reviewers:
The peer (or external) reviewers conduct the review in their expert capacities and arebound by confidentiality: they shall not communicate any content, comments or
responses to comments with third parties. 5
2. The Review:
Aim

The sole aim of the review is to contribute to the overall quality of the
COI product and strive to ensure that COI products are as neutral,
objective, usable, valid and transparent as possible. The reviewers
should verify whether the information used meets the standards of
relevance, reliability, currency, objectivity, accuracy, traceability, andtransparency. Quality standards are described in the EUAA COI Report
Methodology.
The purpose and scope of the products are clearly set out in an
Scope
introduction and in the ToR for the COI report. The review should
evaluate the EUAA COI products in this context. Reviewers should bearin mind the specific needs of the target users and not a generalacademic perspective. The reviewers have no editorial role.
Proofreading and lay-out will be organised by EUAA. Comments about
possible or required additional information shall only be accepted if they
do not imply a substantial change to the scope of the ToR of the COI
product. These comments will only be accepted if they provide a specificreference to additional relevant sources of information.
FormatComments shall be made either directly in the draft Word document(tracked changes or comments); or in a separate document clearly
identifying which sections of the draft COI product comments refer to.
Implementation The (co-)drafters decide whether and how to implement the comments.
He/she will, however, respond to all unaccepted comments. After
implementation of the review, the (co-)drafters provide a final draft to
EUAA.

5

Third parties are all except for the drafter(s), the peer reviewers and EUAA.
28

COI REPORT METHODOLOGYCHECKLIST FOR PEER REVIEW
Note: The checklist is only intended to serve as a reminder for reviewers. Allcomments on the COI report by reviewers shall be made either directly in the draft
Word document (tracked changes or comments) or in a separate document clearly
identifying which sections of the draft COI product the comments refer to.
QUESTION✅

PRESENTATION/STRUCTURE/CONTENTIs the report presented in a well-structured, logical and intelligible way?
Is information readable and useable for the target users?
Is information provided in the report relevant to the topic and for the target
users?
Is information provided in the report current (or time-relevant)?
Are quotes used in the text referenced clearly (footnotes)?
Does the report include any recommendations or policy guidance?
Does the report cover the required elements of the ToR?
LANGUAGE/TONE
Is the language used in the report neutral (impartial) and objective (notinfluenced by opinions, emotions, bias…)?
Is the language used in the report clear to readers?
Is the language used in the report specific and precise?
SOURCES/REFERENCING
If significant gaps in the research were noted, have specific sources withlinks/urls/references been recommended by reviewers to address thesegaps?
Do the drafters use a variety of sources (e.g., government sources, diplomatic
sources, media, NGOs sources…)?
Do the drafters use reliable (trustworthy, credible) sources?
Did the reviewer conduct a random check of footnotes to ensure that thereliability of the sources used has been properly assessed?
If dubious sources (sources which reliability could not be assessed as reliable)
are used, do the drafters explicitly mention this and for which reason(s) it/they
could not be assessed?
Is all information provided in the report referenced (in the footnotes)?

29

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUMQUESTION✅

Is all information provided in the report fully referenced in the bibliography(author, title, date, website if relevant, date of access)?
If information from Fact Finding Mission(s) (FFM(s) is used, is it properlyreferenced (e.g. author/title/dates of mission vs date of report publication)?
When a source used in the report is not well-known, is it presented by thedrafter (by referring to its expertise, etc) the first time that it is mentioned?
If the COI report says that ‘several’ or ‘many’ sources state something, is thisreflected in the referencing (footnotes)?
Did the reviewer conduct a random check of footnotes to ensure that
information written by the drafter accurately reflects information provided by
the source(s) referenced in the footnote?
Did the reviewer conduct a random check of footnotes of about 5 footnotes
per page to ensure that the author references (when possible) primarysources (instead of secondary sources)?

30

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

Annex 2: Glossary
This glossary is mainly based on:a. (EUCG) European Union, ‘Common EU guidelines for processing Country of Origin
Information (COI)’, ARGO project JLS/2005/ARGO/GC/03, April 2008https://coi.EUAA.europa.eu/administration/euinstitutions/PLib/EU_Common_COI_Guidelin
es_2008_EN.pdf
b. (ECS FFM) European Union, ‘EU common guidelines on (joint) fact finding missions: apractical tool to assist Member States in organizing (joint) fact finding missions’,
November 2010 https://coi.EUAA.europa.eu/administration/euinstitutions/PLib/ECS_FFMGuidelines-2010.pdf
c. (EMN) European Union, European Migration Network, ‘Asylum and Migration Glossary 6.0,
online version of May 2018: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-wedo/networks/european_migration_network/glossary_end. (EASO/EUAA) EASO (now EUAA) and discussions/comments/feedback from themethodology working group, StratNet and COI Conference (November 2017).
TERM

DEFINITION/DESCRIPTION

Accuracy (EUAA)

Accuracy means the quality of being
precise, undistorted, and in conformity
with the factual reality.

Analysis (EUAA)

Analysis is the neutral evaluation of anissue or problem, usually made bybreaking it down into its constituent
parts, organising and describing theseparts, and identifying their interrelationships.
The COI analytical process underlies
the whole research cycle and involves
developing ToR and appropriate
research questions, conducting
research, selecting and validating
sources and information, determining
relationships between information
gathered, and presenting a
synthesised, logically organised reporton the results.

31

SYNONYMS andANTONYMS
Synonyms:
Veracity
Sureness
VerityCertainty
Correctness
Precision
Antonyms:
Inaccuracy
Distorted
Falsehood
UntruthSynonyms:
Analytical process

NOT TO BECONFUSED WITH

COI Conclusion
Synthesis

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Application forinternational
protection(EMN)

Drafter (EUAA)

Dubious (EUAA)

Balance(EUCG; EUAA)

Case worker(EMN)

Country of Origin
Information – COI(EUAA)A request made by a third-country
national or a stateless person forprotection from a Member State, who
can be understood to seek refugee
status or subsidiary protection status,
and who does not explicitly request
another kind of protection, outside thescope of Directive 2011/95/EU, that canbe applied for separately.
The drafter or co-drafter is a COI
researcher who conducts research,
analyses information, and drafts the
COI report in a synthesised form,
possibly including COI conclusions.
Although all sources have their own
values and agenda, a source isdeemed dubious when it cannot be
assessed as reliable, for reasons of:
1. a lack of transparency on thesource’s agenda, reputation,
operational presence in the field,
reporting capacity, seriousness ofinvestigations, and level of knowledge.
2. bias, meaning a source presents
highly selective or distorted
information to advance its agenda.
Balance means to take all relevant
parameters into consideration in a
proportional way. The act of checking
a varied range of types of sources inorder to balance out perspectives andobtain a more complete overall view
about an issue/topic.
Personnel of the determining authority
responsible for examining andassessing an application forinternational protection and competent
to take a decision at first instance insuch a case.
Country of Origin Information (COI)
refers to information about countries oforigin, habitual residence, and transit
or return countries used in proceduresfor the individual assessment ofapplications for international
protection. COI may also be used in
the context of non-asylum related
migration cases. COI aims to answer
questions about countries of origin
relating to, for example, the socioeconomic, legal, political, humanrights, conflict, and humanitariansituation at a given time.
COI facilitates and supports decisionmaking processes, but does notdictate decisions. It is distinct from
32

Synonyms:
WriterSynonyms:
Counter-balance
EquityProportion
Antonym:
Imbalance

Country
guidance/guidelines
Country policy

COI REPORT METHODOLOGYCOI Researcher(ECS FFM)
COI Unit(ECS FFM)

COI Conclusion(EUAA)

Corroboration(EUCG; EUAA)

Cross-checking(EUCG; EUAA)

Currency(EUAA)

country guidance and legal
assessments. COI constitutes evidence
in the international protection
procedure and is important to help
making a fact-based assessment.
A person who undertakes diligent andsystematic inquiry or investigation into
COI related matters in order todiscover facts and knowledge.
Specific department from the Asylum
Authorities or an Independent
Department responsible for collecting
and providing COI for asylum related
matters.
A COI conclusion is a reasoned andconsolidated evaluation by the COI
researcher of a particular event, matteror situation based on sources’
combined information. A COI
conclusion aims to highlight main
patterns in the analysed and validated
information in order to assist the target
users to draw informed conclusions
relevant to their tasks. It should take
into account all relevant parameters,
as well as their mutualinterdependence and individual
importance relative to the whole. A
COI conclusion constitutes a ‘newpiece of information’, compared to theinformation provided by the sources: A+ B + C = D. D is the COI conclusion.
COI conclusions cannot include legal
assessments, policy or decision
guidance.
Corroboration is the act of finding
separate information from different
sources that independently matches
other information on the same
incident/fact. Corroborating
information supports or strengthens
the accuracy, validity or veracity of
information describing facts, events orsituations, with other information (orother evidence).
Cross-checking involves checking a
range of different sources to test
whether different and unrelated
sources report similar or different
information about a fact/issue/topic.
Cross-checking is a means tocorroborate or contrast information.
Currency means that information istime-relevant, up-to-date and/or themost recent information available and33

Synonyms:
COI department
Country division
Country
guidance/guidelines
Country policy
Decisionassessment
Fear/risk
assessment

Synonyms:
Confirmation
Substantiation

Cross-checking
Contrasting

Antonyms:
Contradiction

Synonyms:
Comparing
Double-check
Triple-check
Antonym:Compilation
Synonyms:
Present-day
Up-to-date

Cross-reference
Corroboration

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

where the events in question have notchanged since the release of theinformation.

Determining
authority(EMN)

Disclaimer(EUCG)

EU+ countries(EUAA)
Evaluation(EUAA)
Expert(EUCG; EUAA)

False
corroboration(EUAA)

Information(EUCG)
Neutrality(EUCG; EUAA)

Any quasi-judicial or administrative
body in a Member State responsible
for examining applications forinternational protection and competent
to take decisions on such cases in any
instance.
A written statement appended to a
document in order to
1. limit under certain conditions the
responsibility for the possible lack of
exhaustiveness or for certain (side)
effects of the use of the information
contained in a document and/or to
2. limit the right of use of that
document to a copyright or to a certain
circle of clients.
EU Member States plus Norway and
Switzerland.
A systematic and objective study of
the relative weight or value according
to given standards.
A person with proven and reputed
skills or knowledge in a particular areaor subject as a result of experience ortraining. An expert acts as
independent specialist based on
his/her expertise.

False corroboration occurs when apiece of information appears to becorroborated by information fromdifferent sources while in fact the
information stems from the same
primary/original source.
The basic content or data gathered
through specific research.
The state of not taking sides on anissue, of being unrelated to or without
any possible stakeholder involvementwith the subject matter, and without
seeking to favour a particular outcome
or conclusion.

Current
Antonyms:(Out)dated
Old
Past
Synonyms:
Decision maker
Decision taker
Judge
Synonyms:
Limitation

Description
Synonyms:
Specialist
Intellectual
authority(e.g. academic)

COI Researcher

Antonym:
Amateur
Neophyte
ApprenticeNoviceSynonyms:
Data
Content
Synonyms:
Uninvolved
UnimplicatedUninfluenced
Impartiality
Without prejudice
Antonyms:

34

Introduction
Synthesis

SourceIndependence
Objectivity

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

Objectivity(EUCG; EUAA)

Oral source(EUAA)

Original source(EUCG; EUAA)
Primary source(EUCG; EUAA)

Public (EUCG)

Objectivity means the quality of asource’s reporting being fact-based
and not influenced by emotions,speculation, personal or group-based
prejudices, interests or biases.

PartisanInvolved
BiasedSynonyms:
Verifiable
Fact-based
Empirical
Observable
Concrete
Detached
Unbiased

Antonyms:
BiasedPartialSubjectivity
One-sided
Speculative
A person who is interviewed/contacted Synonyms:
by a COI researcher to obtain specific Interviewee
information about a topic that may not Interlocutor
be available in published sources. Oralsources can be experts or individuals
with particular knowledge relevant to a
topic/issue. They are selected andinterviewed with particular care and indepth for specific research purposes.
All oral sources and their information
are assessed against quality criteria.
An original source documents theevent, fact or matter for the first time.
A primary source is closely or directly
Synonyms:
related to (i.e. having first-handFirst-hand accountinformation of) an event, fact, or
Eyewitness
matter.
Testimony
Antonyms:
Second-handSecondary source
Indirect
Intermediate
In general: The state of content, source Synonyms:
and/or information product not to beOpen source
subject, in theory, to limited
Unrestricteddistribution. In practice, however, it
Disclosable
might be possible, or it will even be
Antonyms:
very likely that the public as such has
Classified
no access to such content, source and/ Restricted
or information product due to it
Confidential
ignoring the mere existence of suchcontent, source and/ or information
product, or due to practical thresholds(cf. grey literature). Remark: In some
EU Member States ‘public’ is to beconsidered a degree ofclassification, i.e. the lowest degree
35

Independence
Neutrality

ExpertPublic domain

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Relevance (EUAA)

Reliability(EUCG; EUAA)

Report (EUAA)

Reviewer (EUAA)

Round-tripping
information(EUCG; EUAA)

applicable. In this context, ‘public’means ‘not restricted to onlyinternal distribution’. In fact some
EU Member States hardly ever oreven never disclose information
products any further than the applicant
and his lawyer. In fact, the applicant
and his lawyer are the outer limitsof the distribution chain. Therefore,
in these Member States, ‘public’
does not necessarily correspondwith ‘open to uncontrolled public
disclosure’.
Relevance means the quality of being
closely connected to the fact, event, or
matter in question.

Reliability means the quality of being
trustworthy to the matter, fact, or
event.

Synonyms:
Appropriate
Pertinence
Antonym:
Irrelevance
Synonyms:
Credibility
Trustworthiness
Faithful
Truthful
GenuineReputable
Veracious
Antonyms:
Dubious
Unreliable
Doubtful
Fake
Questionable
FaithlessUntrustworthy
False
Synonyms:
Description
Account
Study

A written and detailed account or
description of the findings on facts,
event or situation which may give
analysis, statements, or conclusions on
the result of the investigation.
A national or EUAA COI researcher
who conducts a peer review of the
EUAA COI report in order to contributeto the overall quality of the report bychecking that information used meets
quality criteria and the COI
methodology is respected.
An external expert reviewer may also
be used for quality review, based on
their knowledge of the country oforigin, or experience with COI.
Round tripping occurs when secondary Synonyms:
sources cite each other instead of
Duplicatedreferring to the original/primary source. information
36

Independence
Pertinence
Appropriate
Traceability

Judgement
Opinion
Forecast
Summary
Commentary.

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

Secondary source(EUAA)

Source (EUAA)
Speculation(EUAA)
Summary (EUAA)

Synthesis (EUAA)

Target users(EUAA)

Terms ofReference (ToR)(ECS FFM; EUAA)

Failure to identify round tripping canlead to the use of information that may
not be as current as it seems.
A secondary source reproduces orrefers to information from the original
source (or other secondary sources).

A medium, person or institution
producing information.
The formulation of a theory withoutsound evidence to support
A writing technique for presenting
information that gives a short andconcise statement of all major,
significant points of a document orreport.

Synthesising means organising,combining, and grouping information
together thematically to form a
coherent whole, instead of listing or
quoting information source by source.
The drafter synthesises similarstatements found in sources,
presenting corroborating orcontradictory information together, andmakes the comparison clear for thereader.
Synthesis can occur at the level of thereport, chapter, section, paragraph andsentence using different writing
techniques.
Target users for EUAA COI reports
include case workers, COI researchers,
and policy-makers in national
determining authorities; courts andtribunals responsible for examining
and assessing applications forinternational protection; as well as EU
Institutions, bodies and agencies
The ToR are the framework and the
backbone of the report. They containthe general topics as well as subtopics
or research questions that should be
addressed in the report. The ToR aim
to address the information needs ofthe target users. ToR are prepared as
defined in the initiation process. ToR
are binding for the drafter(s) of the37

Synonyms:
Second-handAntonyms:
First-hand source
Primary source
Antonyms:
Conclusion
Synonyms:
Compendium
Abstract
ApercuDigestRecapitulation
OutlineRésumé
Synopsis
Brief accountInformation
Analysis
Introduction
Prologue
COI conclusion
Synthesis

AnalysisConclusion
Summary

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Traceability(EUCG; EUAA)

Transparency(EUCG, EUAA)

report. Deviations from the ToR andthe reasons for it should be clearlystated in the introduction of the report.
The extent to which the primary and/or Synonyms :original source of a piece ofLocatable
information can be identified.
Identifiable
Deducible
The quality of being fully referenced
Derivable
and cited clearly.
Inferable

Transparency is the quality of being
clear, intelligible, and unequivocal.
The quality of being clear about themethods for how research decisions
were made, information was obtained,
assessed, and presented.

Usability

Validation(EUCG; EUAA)
Validity

The degree of ‘ease of use’ for target
users. In this regard, the language ofthe report should be guided by thetarget users. The same applies to thestructure of the report which should be
logical and clearly arranged.
Terminology used by sources and in
the EUAA COI report should be clearly
explained.
The process of evaluation of a source
and/or information against COI quality
criteria.
Validity is the quality of being
acceptable in meeting the needs ofthe target users and of being
methodologically, logically, andfactually sound38

Antonyms:
Indeductive
Undecomposable
Untraceable
Synonyms:
Clearness
Intelligibility
Understandability
Antonyms:
Distortion
Obscurity
Opacity
Unclearness
Equivocal
Ambiguous

Synonyms:
Evaluation

Traceability

COI REPORT METHODOLOGY

39