Credibility, Proof and Refugee Law
Credibility, Proof and Refugee Law
复制标题
可信度、证据和难民法
DOI：
10.1093/ijrl/eep027
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
J. Sweeney
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Sweeney
评估可信度是确定难民地位的一个合法和重要步骤，但“可信度”一词的使用有一系列描述性意图和法律的后果。它可能被松散地用来表示案件的力量，或者它可能在申请人无证据的陈述作为证据的可接受性方面发挥非常具体的作用。通过引入证据法中的一些基本概念，可以将“可信”的门槛设置得比“证明”低得多。研究表明，可信但未经证实的陈述在满足庇护案件的证据标准方面可能发挥重要作用。本文以英国关于可信度的“庇护政策指令”（API）为出发点。API是政府庇护政策的声明，由庇护“案件所有者”和其他决策者遵循。尽管意图良好，但API存在混淆可信性和证据的风险。为了探讨可信度和证据的问题，本文分析了API本身，英国的主要立法，移民规则，判例法，欧盟法律，以及联合国难民事务高级专员办事处（难民署）提供的指导。
Assessing credibility is a legitimate and significant step in determining refugee status, but the term ‘credibility’ is employed with a range of descriptive intentions and legal consequences. It may be used loosely to express the strength of the case, or it may be given a very specific role in relation to the admissibility of the applicant's unsupported statements as evidence. By introducing some basic concepts from the law of evidence, the threshold of ‘credible’ can be set much lower than ‘proven’. It is shown that credible but unproven statements may play an important role in satisfying the standard of proof in asylum cases. This article takes as its starting point the UK's ‘Asylum Policy Instruction’ (API) on credibility. APIs are statements of the government's asylum policy, and are followed by asylum ‘case owners’ and other decision makers. Although well-intentioned, the API runs the risk of confusing credibility and proof. In order to explore the issues of credibility and proof, this article analyses the API itself, the UK's primary legislation, Immigration Rules, and case law, EU law, and guidance provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR).