If you would like to receive a copy of this information, please fill out a request for information on our website and we will respond shortly. We have country conditions information and advisory materials for a number of other countries and topics, especially information regarding gender-based violence, persecution of LGBT individuals, and children.
We cover anywhere and everywhere, although our resources regarding domestic violence and violence against women in Mexico and Central America are the most extensive. If you have a case for which you are in need of assistance, please feel free to submit a request at the above URL and we will share with you anything that may be of help. The COI Forum is a free online tool for all COI researchers and users of COI working in refugee status determination to share publications and ideas on COI research and sources, to post any COI research related questions for other members to answer, as well as to develop shared resources.
The COI Forum is open to all organisations and individuals, subject to approval by the COI Forum moderators, but is a confidential private discussion group only for the use of its members.
The Public Site gives access to country of origin experts, news and information on the latest legislation and most recent case law, event listings and a general resources list which links to related sites. It is accessible to all. However, we have no way of knowing if these listed experts are willing to do this work without charge. You should contact them directly and explain your situation where you are unable to pay. Human Rights Watch is a nonprofit, nongovernmental human rights organization made up of more than staff members around the globe.
Its staff consists of human rights professionals including country experts, lawyers, journalists, and academics of diverse backgrounds and nationalities. Established in , Human Rights Watch is known for its accurate fact-finding, impartial reporting, effective use of media, and targeted advocacy, often in partnership with local human rights groups. Each year, Human Rights Watch publishes more than reports and briefings on human rights conditions in some 90 countries, generating extensive coverage in local and international media.
Its publications include country reports, as well as an annual World Reports. Annual World Report summarize human rights conditions in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide in each year. To view the HRW report click here. Human Rights Watch Reports on country conditions are persuasive. To sign up for the Newsletter, please click here to receive regular updates.
The International Crisis Group is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict. They provide regular and reliable updates and reports on countries in conflict situations. It is also available in French and in Arabic and some reports are available in other languages. RefWorld is the leading source of information necessary for taking quality decisions on refugee status. Refworld contains a vast collection of reports relating to situations in countries of origin, policy documents and positions, and documents relating to international and national legal frameworks.
The information has been carefully selected and compiled from UNHCR's global network of field offices, Governments, international, regional and non-governmental organizations, academic institutions and judicial bodies. Still Human Still Here is a broad coalition of organisations that are campaigning together to bring to an end the destitution of refused asylum seekers in the UK by improving the quality of the decision making process, extending asylum support and healthcare until the time of departure from the UK or their grant of leave to remain and granting asylum seekers permission to work if their cases have not been resolved in six months or if they have been refused but cannot be returned through no fault of their own.
These commentaries aim to be a tool to allow legal representatives to identify relevant country of origin information and point to potential inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the use of country of origin information and case law in the OGNs. Since February , the search engine on ecoi. Le site www. El sitio www. The IRB has a wealth of material on their website on all manner of things dealing with their work, including Research and Country of Origin Information.
At present, they are redesigning their online research applications but eventually these will be freely available to all. They have a number of offices accross Canada and can be contacted info irb-cisr [dot] gc [dot] ca via Email. The Country of Origin Information Service COI Service provides up-to-date, sourced, independently reviewed information on asylum seekers' countries of origin.
Sources include UN reports, human rights reports, various media bodies and information from specialist country officers, amongst others. Do consult Asylum Research Consultancy www. The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices highlight the continued pursuit of "free and equal dignity in human rights" in every corner of the world. Based on factual reporting from our embassies and posts abroad, these Congressionally mandated reports chronicle human rights conditions in almost countries and territories.
The reports draw attention to the growing challenges facing individuals and organizations as governments around the world fall short of their obligation to uphold universal human rights. The Report can be found here. Skip to main content. Country of Origin Information Experts Click here for our list of Country of Origin Experts Country of Origin Information experts have achieved the years of academic and practical experience about a particular country that qualifies their COI information to provide supporting objective evidence on an individual claim for refugee status.
There are other data bases of COI experts and sources of advice on writing such expert reports. Rights in Exile Guide to Writing COI Expert Witness Reports This a guide that will review the legal elements of claiming asylum under the Geneva Convention, explains how a country of origin information COI expert affadavit helps to support these elements, and provides guidelines for drafting such expert affidavits. Equatorial Guinea. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
San Marino. American Samoa. Sao Tome and Principe. Faroe Islands. Saudi Arabia. Antigua and Barbuda. Marshall Islands. French Guiana. Sierra Leone. French Polynesia. Solomon Islands. South Africa. South Korea. South Sudan. Sri Lanka. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Netherlands Antilles. New Caledonia.
British Virgin Islands. New Zealand. Burkina Faso. Human rights have intrinsic value, and achieving them is seen as an objective in its own right. But human rights are also a critical factor for the long term sustainability of development. Human rights are also referred to under the commitment to broaden country-level policy dialogue. Several bilateral aid agencies have policies with explicit human rights foundations with many highlighting the positive connection between human rights and development. While such policies articulate a range of objectives and principles to guide their development activities in order to promote or mainstream human rights, few do more than mention human rights obligations of either donors or partners Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs Prominent examples of this type of development policy framework include the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Policy SDC, , which highlights the human rights content of the Millennium Declaration and the principle of building capacity to realize human rights obligations.
Mainstreaming is a prevalent feature in this type of policy see GTZ, , , and although many are unequivocal in affirming their human rights foundation, few highlight human rights obligations. A few notable examples can be found that link human rights and development through an explicit application of human rights obligations under international treaties. The Austrian Development Cooperation Human Rights Policy Document locates the strength of the human rights framework precisely in its foundation in a legally based framework. At their strongest, these emphasize both partner and donor obligations and offer concrete operational entry points for their application in development policy frameworks.
New Zealand's International Aid and Development Agency document, Human Rights Policy Statement and its Human Rights Implementation Plan of Action — confirm the role of donor and partner human rights treaty obligations in linking human rights and development. Another example emerges in Canadian legislation: the Official Development Accountability Act offers a definition of official development assistance and accountability, and contains a human rights clause stating that operations must be consistent with international human rights standards.
The centrality of human rights to EU development cooperation draws explicitly on legal commitments that are both internal and external to the EU itself. The policies flow from the legal obligations of its Member States, as well as from EU treaty provisions which recognize human rights as common values underpinning EU partnership and dialogue with third countries. The policies of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EBRD and the New Partnership for Africa's Development NEPAD illustrate the relevance of legal frameworks to link human rights and development activities through obligations under international law treaties in the former, and through connecting development and human rights institutions and processes in the latter.
The EBRD policy also specifies that its country and sector strategies should summarize the principal environmental, human rights, gender equality and other social issues in the relevant country or sector, and set out the EBRD's proposals for taking these issues into account in its operations, where appropriate paragraph In Africa, the NEPAD Framework Document contains several references to human rights, as a foundation, objective and responsibility of the mechanism.
In general terms, the review of development policy reveals an uneven engagement with human rights and a lack of express reference to human rights obligations and the legal dimensions of human rights. First, the discussion of divergence above reveals that in most development institutions or agencies human rights are not characterized in legal or obligatory terms. The lack of emphasis on the legal dimension of human rights in development may be contrasted with the prominence of international treaty obligations pertaining to well integrated issues like trade and environment which are explicitly provided for in the policies and guidance of several development institutions.
Second, policies that recognize the interconnection of development policy and international law tend to take a more holistic view of the participation of states in various fora, and the interlinked nature of their duties in different international contexts. Policies that evidence a separation between human rights and development tend to neglect the legal dimension of the former and states may content to keep their treaty obligations under human rights instruments separate from the processes and policies that determine their contributions to, or allocations from, development expenditures.
Third, even policies that bridge human rights and development are typically stronger at the level of discourse than they are in respect of assessment, monitoring and evaluation. This may offer a partial explanation for the lack of emphasis on the legal dimension of human rights: like other international treaties, human rights law brings with it a full range of rules, assessments and indicators, forcing questions of concrete application, monitoring and even enforcement.
Human rights law is founded on a set of stable, positive law commitments into which states have voluntarily entered, binding them to put in place domestic measures and legislation compatible with their treaty obligations. Human rights treaty obligations have the benefit of being bounded and voluntarily acceded to, with the specific parameters of states' obligations carefully negotiated, and circumscribed through reservation and derogation.
AUSTRIA. 2. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Results 1 - 10 of 78 Country Reports on Terrorism - Austria. 19 July Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Austria. 3 March
This approach avails of the natural limits of the treaty undertakings, thereby securing a clarity and legitimacy that approaches based on principles and values or even general principles of international law may not avail of as easily. Treaty-based obligations underpin the rights enshrined in the nine core human rights treaties concluded under the auspices of the United Nations, 45 and the conventions concluded under the auspices of the ILO 46 , and regional organizations like the Council of Europe 47 and the Organisation of American States OAS.
Like these other types of multilateral treaties, human rights treaties enjoy high levels of ratification Alston and Simma, , but distinguish themselves in predating many and having long established processes and monitoring bodies, as well as a growing body of practical tools and indicators. Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review , UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies, 50 as well as individual communications mechanisms, complaint procedures Tomuschat, : — and special procedures, 51 all of which continue to develop a substantial body of expert knowledge.
Despite the divisive politicization that plagues many human rights processes, the specific contribution of approaches that integrate human rights in development is that they make good practice and principles a matter of obligation. Without offering a legal base to that obligation, it is not clear whether human rights can deliver on the promise of this distinct contribution since the source of human rights or the duties remains unclear. Without a legal foundation, human rights commitments, values and principles are potentially subject to variance, and to some extent remain subjective.
The fact that human rights have not been more systematically integrated into development demands an examination of the approaches that have been used, in particular non-legal, social science and principled-based approaches. A legal approach offers a clear rationale for the relevance of human rights to development, which is simply that it binds as a matter of law and is therefore obligatory.
It offers a concrete baseline for ensuring the respect of human rights and preventing any lowering of the standard of human rights enjoyment by development activities, which can also be conceived of as a form of due diligence, to protect against political and other forms of risk associated with human rights harms.
However, without anchorage in specific, binding legal obligations such an application would appear difficult to undertake and a normative assessment improbably upheld. Development policies and activities tend to be evaluated by individual institutions or agencies relative to internal accountability mechanisms or systems of evaluation which lack a normative element grounded in separate legal commitments.
There are few external forms of assessments or evaluation, 53 and even fewer openly normative assessments of development. A human rights legal standard potentially offers both, and does so based on a shared value system inculcated in international treaties to which most of the world's countries are party, and to which they are bound under international law. The incorporation of human rights legal standards mitigates human rights harms by providing a binding legal standard against which development policies, processes and outcomes can be assessed to 1 determine risk to human rights and whether development activities are likely to, or in fact, result in harm; 2 ensure that development activities in fact promote human rights or create the conditions for the realization of human rights World Bank, : 1 ; 3 prevent and redress unintended negative impacts on human rights in development processes and outcomes; 4 better understand the claim that development advances human rights; and 5 foster a deeper understanding of the relationship between the two fields.
Policy coherence fosters the sustainability of policies by preventing duplication and avoiding contradiction through promoting coherence across related subject matters and assessing the impacts of diverse areas of international policy on one another. Policy coherence is also indispensable to the realization of human rights. In practice, policy coherence supports a focus on existing obligations, and applies to the institutional structures within which states, as traditional duty-bearers, operate so that the actions of states in various institutional structures and processes do not undermine human rights enjoyment.
This may call for coherence across policies governing different issues, as well as coordination of a state's positions and participation in a number of international organizations and processes. Human rights treaties respond to the challenge of policy coherence by providing an established legal platform around which to organize that coherence: The fact that both donors and partner countries have ratified the international human rights treaties provides a uniquely valuable reference point for harmonisation efforts.
A mutually agreed, universal normative framework already exists, supported not only by political commitment, but also by the force of legal obligation. As well, at the operational level, there is growing convergence on the integration of human rights in development.
In practical terms the pursuit of such coherence through reliance on human rights treaties would require legal assessments to be undertaken to gain a comprehensive view of the legal obligations potentially in play in a given context. It might also require the development of a strategic view of the roles and responsibilities of international actors in respect of these obligations, including any potential applications to themselves, and might call for some process of resolution in the event of conflict or inconsistencies, including possibly establishing a hierarchy of legal obligations.
Were such policy coherence to be pursued with respect to human rights, some basic cooperation between the key international actors would be necessary, and the mutual informing of guiding strategies indispensable. Another significant consequence of the separation of these frameworks is the absence of specific human rights accountability in development policy and activities Bradlow, ; Clark, ; Darrow, ; Skogly, It is argued that accountability for human rights cannot properly be upheld because human rights obligations are not factored into development policies, such that states—as donors or clients—can pursue development activities without any systematic assessments of their consequences in human rights terms and without there being any effective legal recourse where those consequences are negative.
The absence of legal duties in development policy frameworks undermines the possibility of the key contribution of human rights — accountability — being upheld in the context of development with respect to both process and outcome Twomey, This is so despite the increased prominence of accountability in the content and emphasis of development or aid policies discussed above.
Second, while accountability frameworks such as those governing the Paris Declaration 63 fulfill essential functions, and are not a priori inconsistent with human rights accountability, their parallel existence, without any corresponding recognition of human rights obligations or impacts presents a risk to the latter.
The Paris Declaration constitutes a mechanism through which donors and partners are held mutually accountable: these same countries are accountable for human rights that are directly relevant to, and potentially impacted by, harmonization efforts. Third, the accountability propounded through development frameworks is not equivalent to the legal accountability upheld through human rights law. Rather, it is an accountability centered on principles, political commitments and policy frameworks rather than specific, binding legal obligations under public international law.
One may argue that the human rights accountability lacuna is compounded rather than mitigated by the existence of various forms of non-legal accountability mechanisms in development contexts. These are not a substitute for human rights accountability, and without recognizing and complementing it, they risk undermining it.
That complementarity could be promoted if the processes connected with human rights treaties could be connected in some way to development processes, and if human rights treaty obligations could become a part of existing accountability mechanisms, whether through policy frameworks or complaints mechanisms. Human rights law norms could deepen and ground existing accountability mechanisms and help fill some of the perceived accountability gaps in both horizontal state to state and vertical state to citizen relationships.
This article has sought to underscore some obvious but nevertheless overlooked strengths of the human rights law framework in the context of development. While it does not argue for human rights conditionalities it aims to highlight in a preliminary way, some of the opportunities presented by the international human rights framework as a shared, stable and clear structure of international treaties with substantial and, in some cases near universal ratification. These offer a legal and normative baseline founded on the voluntarily undertaken commitments of states, which bind them under public international law and which may support them in the pursuit of sustainable development.
In summary, for development practitioners aiming to promote the integration of human rights more systematically into development, this article proposes that the international law framework offers one way to do this by providing a binding and legitimate starting point to establish the connections, and a body of rules, principles, indicators and processes to assist the integration of human rights in development.
Recognition of the treaty base of international human rights in the context of development refocuses attention on the fact that 1 human rights are not voluntary or just rhetorical, they are the subject of legally binding commitments; 2 human rights may add value and fundamentally change how development is pursued, what it pursues and what it can achieve; 3 realizing human rights may be different from undertaking good development practice — the former is done out of legal obligation, the latter might not be; 4 human rights are intrinsically valuable and therefore worth protecting in development; 5 human rights can play an instrumental role in fostering sustainable development through adverting risk and focusing on ways in which development can support the realization of human rights.
It is submitted that the failure to recognize the legal dimensions of human rights may indeed be connected with the wider failure to recognize the distinct value of human rights for development. This article represents the author's personal views and should not be attributed to the institution for which she works. Responsibility for errors or omissions remains my own.
This work is dedicated to Kristina Celich.
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Sign In or Create an Account. Sign In. Advanced Search. Article Navigation. Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation.
Volume 1. This article was originally published in. Article Contents. Development Frameworks and the Incorporation of Human Rights. World Bank. Oxford Academic. Google Scholar. Cite Citation. Permissions Icon Permissions. Abstract Human rights and development continue to reflect a separate evolution. This article reflects the personal views of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank.
For an analogous discussion linking trade and labor standards, see Barry and Reddy : This is the typology used in McInerney-Lankford : Participation and consultation are central to the policies and practice of many development agencies; see e. For a comprehensive discussion of international law provisions on equality and protection against discrimination, see McKean and Fredman Jus cogens rules are those peremptory norms from which no derogation is permitted.
They protect the overriding interests and values of the international community of states, and due to their affinity with natural law, are understood to include human rights. Case,  I. There are certain international obligations which, by virtue of the importance of the rights involved, all states can be held to have a legal interest in protecting. These include rules concerning the basic rights of the human person. See Shihata : Under such a view, human rights considerations fall outside provisions barring political considerations and amount to interference in the domestic affairs of members.
One may argue that such provisions should be interpreted in light of contemporary international law, which balances a protection of sovereignty with respect for principles that underpin the international legal order and the Charter of the United Nations, including human rights. Also see the earlier, Hemlich and Borghese OHCHR a , b : 3 traces the links between human rights and the MDGs but also underscores the broad disconnect between the two frameworks. Also see Alston Global Monitoring emanated from a request of the Development Committee at the Bank-Fund Annual Meetings which called for determined implementation of the agreed strategies and partnerships for reaching the MDGs and requested a framework by which to monitor progress on the underlying policies and actions while recognizing the role of the UN in MDG monitoring.
World Bank Operational Policy O. The current nomenclature favors PRS rather than PRSP, since most individual country strategies go beyond just fulfilling the requirement for a PRSP and include a country's broader plan to reduce poverty. They also ask whether the mention of human rights in PRSP would materially alter their conclusions, since the risk would be that human rights would simply remain confined to the language without any consequence in reality.
It states in section 4.
On trade, see Croome : preface. On international environmental treaties, see the World Bank O. See H. Schermers and N. OHCHR work on human rights indicators from to , see e. Also see Kedzia : 3. Each member is critically examined approximately once every four years; this way five or six programmes are examined annually. For example, social or environmental assessments or human rights tools. This idea has relevance also to efforts in the UN human rights machinery to enhance coherence and harmonization between treaty bodies.
Rome Declaration paragraph 3 ; Paris Declaration principles of ownership paragraphs 14—15 ; and Alignment paragraphs 16— In addition, accountability mechanisms or compliance functions that operate within development institutions may have an important bearing on the discussion of accountability, including human rights accountability. For an overview, see Bradlow One may argue by analogy from the aid effectiveness context that the multiplicity of monitoring frameworks undermines accountability and effectiveness.
Rome Declaration paragraph 2.