The article examines the process of evidentiary assessment of Country of Origin Information (COI) by policy-makers. It particularly focuses on the evidentiary assessment of COI by the UK and the Netherlands in their decisions to designate Albania and Kosovo as Safe Countries of Origin (SCO). The article assesses the COI standards laid down in the European Asylum Support Office’s (EASO) Country of Origin Information Report Methodology, and whether, and how, these standards are applied by the UK and the Netherlands. The analysis shows that the UK and the Netherlands have in practice not given proper meaning to the standards in the EASO methodology. As a result, the Dutch and UK SCO policies on Albania and Kosovo lack a common and systematic approach to COI. The policies fail to show how information was assessed and why substantial weight was attached to information in the determination that there is in general no persecution in Albania and Kosovo. The analysis of the Dutch and UK SCO policies leads to the important conclusion that there is much room for the improvement of evidentiary assessment of COI at the level of the decision-maker and policy-maker, especially, with regard to the transparent presentation of the evidentiary assessment. The European Union should consider the adoption of the COI quality standards in binding EU legislation that would provide the proper basis for a common and systematic approach to COI that can truly improve convergence in asylum decision-making.

中文翻译：

---

安全性推定测试：原产国信息在国家安全原产国指定中的使用

本文考察了政策制定者对原产国信息 (COI) 的证据评估过程。它特别关注英国和荷兰在将阿尔巴尼亚和科索沃指定为安全原产国 (SCO) 的决定中对 COI 的证据评估。本文评估了欧洲庇护支持办公室 (EASO) 原产国信息报告方法中规定的 COI 标准，以及英国和荷兰是否以及如何应用这些标准。分析表明，英国和荷兰在实践中并未对 EASO 方法中的标准赋予适当的含义。因此，荷兰和英国上合组织对阿尔巴尼亚和科索沃的政策缺乏共同和系统的利益冲突方法。政策未能说明如何信息进行了评估，以及为什么在确定阿尔巴尼亚和科索沃总体上没有迫害的过程中对信息给予了很大的重视。对荷兰和英国上合组织政策的分析得出的重要结论是，在决策者和政策制定者层面对 COI 的证据评估有很大改进空间，尤其是在透明呈现方面证据评估。欧盟应考虑在具有约束力的欧盟立法中采用 COI 质量标准，这将为共同和系统的 COI 方法提供适当的基础，从而真正提高庇护决策的趋同性。