How Country Experts Assess Conflicting Country Evidence in Asylum Cases

Country information is rarely limited to a single source. A country expert may need to consider government publications, reports from international organisations, academic research, civil society material, media reporting and other documentary evidence when preparing a country expert report.

These sources may not always present identical information. They may differ in their findings, dates, geographic coverage, methodology or assessment of particular events and conditions.

Where relevant sources appear to conflict, the issue is not necessarily resolved by selecting one source and disregarding the others. A country expert may instead need to examine the nature of the differences, consider the relevance and reliability of the material, and explain how the available evidence informs their professional assessment.

This can be particularly relevant where a country expert report addresses a specific issue arising in an asylum or immigration case.

Why Country Evidence May Differ

Differences between sources can arise for several reasons.

Different Publication Dates

Country conditions can change over time. A government report, academic publication and media article may describe circumstances at different points.

An older source may therefore provide useful historical context while being less informative about current conditions. Conversely, a newer publication may not provide the same depth of historical information.

The date of each source can therefore be relevant when assessing apparently conflicting information.

Different Geographic Coverage

Country information may describe conditions at a national level while other material focuses on a particular province, city, district or community.

Conditions may not necessarily be uniform throughout a country. A difference between national-level information and evidence concerning a particular locality therefore does not automatically mean that one source is inaccurate.

The geographical scope of the material may need to be considered alongside the issue being examined.

Different Groups or Circumstances

Sources may address different populations or circumstances.

For example, information concerning the general treatment of a population may differ from material concerning a particular political group, religious community, ethnic group or other category.

Understanding who is covered by a source can help explain why two publications appear to reach different conclusions.

Different Research Methods

Sources may also be produced using different methodologies.

A statistical publication, academic study, government assessment and interview-based report may collect and analyse information in different ways. Their findings may therefore not be directly comparable.

The methodology and purpose of the source can be relevant when considering the significance of particular information.

How a Country Expert May Approach Conflicting Sources

There is no single method that will necessarily apply to every disagreement between sources. The approach will depend on the country, subject matter, available evidence and instructions.

Several considerations may nevertheless be relevant.

Identify the Actual Point of Difference

The first step may be to establish whether the sources genuinely conflict.

Sometimes two sources appear inconsistent because they address different periods, locations or groups.

For example, one source may describe conditions in a capital city while another examines a particular region. Both may provide useful information within their respective scope.

Clarifying the precise point of difference can prevent an apparent conflict from being overstated.

Consider the Date of the Evidence

The timing of the information may be important.

Where conditions have changed, an expert may need to consider whether an earlier source remains relevant to the question being examined.

This does not necessarily mean that older evidence has no value. Historical material may still help explain how a situation developed or provide context for later events.

Consider the Source and Its Methodology

An expert may consider who produced the information, why it was produced and how the information was gathered.

Relevant considerations may include:

• Whether the source identifies its underlying evidence
• Whether the information is first-hand or reported through another source
• Whether the methodology is explained
• Whether the publication is intended to provide statistical, academic, governmental or other analysis
• Whether the source covers the country, region or group relevant to the issue
• Whether the information can be independently checked

The relevance of these factors will depend on the particular material.

Primary and Secondary Sources

A source may report information originating elsewhere rather than presenting the original material itself.

For example, a news article may describe a government announcement or an NGO report. Where possible and appropriate, an expert may consider the underlying primary material rather than relying solely on secondary reporting.

This can help the expert assess the original information and consider whether a secondary account accurately reflects it.

The use of secondary sources may still be appropriate in some circumstances, depending on the subject matter and availability of relevant material.

Comparing Different Types of Country Information

Conflicting country evidence should generally be considered in context rather than treated as a simple choice between two opposing statements.

An expert may compare:

• Government and official material
• Reports from international organisations
• Academic research
• Civil society reports
• Local or international media
• Statistical information
• Legal and policy documents
• Other relevant documentary sources

Different types of evidence can address different aspects of the same country situation.

The purpose is not necessarily to make every source agree. Instead, the expert's analysis may consider what the available evidence, taken together, indicates about the particular issue within the scope of their expertise.

For information about the broader scope of country and thematic expertise, see Country & Thematic Expertise.

Explaining Differences in the Expert Report

Where conflicting evidence is material to the opinion, it can be useful for the report to identify the disagreement rather than leaving the reader to discover it independently.

An expert may explain:

1. What the different sources say.
2. Why they appear to differ.
3. Whether the difference relates to timing, location, methodology or another factor.
4. Which evidence the expert considers most relevant to the issue.
5. How the conflicting material affects the expert's assessment, including any relevant uncertainty.

The precise level of detail will depend on the significance of the disagreement and the instructions.

Avoiding Overstatement

Conflicting sources do not necessarily establish that one source is correct and the other is wrong.

A cautious assessment may recognise that available information is incomplete or that reasonable differences exist between sources.

Where the evidence does not allow a firm conclusion, an expert can identify that limitation rather than presenting an uncertain assessment as definitive.

Applying Conflicting Evidence to the Individual Case

Country expert evidence may sometimes need to consider how general country information relates to the particular circumstances identified in the instructions.

For example, sources may provide different assessments of conditions affecting a particular political group. The relevance of those differences may depend on the person's location, profile, activities, timeframe and other facts that fall within the scope of the expert's instructions.

The expert should distinguish the country evidence from factual findings made by the decision-maker. Where relevant, the expert can explain how the available country information relates to the facts they have been asked to consider without treating disputed factual matters as established simply because they appear in the instructions.

This type of case-specific analysis can form part of wider Country Condition Report Services, depending on the issues requiring expert consideration.

When Country Evidence Changes Over Time

Conflicting information can sometimes reflect genuine changes in country conditions.

A government may change, legislation may be introduced or removed, security conditions may develop, or the treatment of a particular group may change.

In such circumstances, sources published at different times may describe different stages of the same situation.

A country expert may therefore need to consider the chronology of relevant events rather than treating the difference between older and newer sources as an unexplained contradiction.

What Legal Representatives May Consider When Reviewing a Report

When reviewing country expert evidence, legal representatives may find it useful to consider whether a report:

• Identifies significant sources clearly
• Distinguishes source material from the expert's own analysis
• Recognises material differences between sources where relevant
• Considers the dates and geographic scope of important evidence
• Explains why particular material is relevant to the issue being examined
• Identifies meaningful limitations or uncertainty
• Separates country analysis from disputed factual findings in the individual case

These considerations may assist in assessing the basis and scope of the expert's opinion.

Further background on country evidence and related topics is available through the Resources & Guidance section.

Conclusion

Country evidence can differ for legitimate reasons, including differences in timing, geographical coverage, methodology, population and purpose.

Where conflicting evidence is material to a country expert's assessment, the expert may need to examine the underlying sources, identify the nature of the disagreement and explain how the available information informs the opinion. This does not necessarily require treating one source as wholly reliable and another as wholly unreliable.

A careful approach can instead recognise the scope and limitations of different sources while keeping the distinction between published country information and professional expert analysis clear.

The appropriate approach will depend on the subject matter, available evidence, instructions and procedural requirements applicable to the individual case.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about country expert evidence and is not legal advice. The requirements applicable to an individual case may depend on the relevant proceedings, instructions and current procedural rules.