In August, Minister Faber announced an asylum crisis, partly due to a record-breaking 38,377 asylum applications by 2023. Yet a crucial question in the asylum process remains: how do you determine the truth? Tanja van Veldhuizen, a legal psychologist at VU University Amsterdam, focuses her research on the challenges of truth-finding within this process.
How is the truth determined?
Van Veldhuizen, who specialises in truth finding within legal processes, investigates how the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) can gather truthful information to decide whether an asylum seeker should be allowed to stay. In the latest episode of the VU podcast, she discusses this complex and often criticised procedure. The process starts with the "application hearing", where the asylum seeker tells who he or she is, what their country of origin is and how they travelled to the Netherlands. This is followed by a "further hearing" where the asylum motive is discussed in detail. Why has someone fled to the Netherlands and why does he or she think international protection is needed? Van Veldhuizen explains that in many cases, staff assess the credibility of asylum applications based on stories without documents or supporting documents. This makes the procedure challenging, van Veldhuizen says: 'How can you find out the truth when there is hardly any tangible evidence and you depend on stories?'
The psychological complexity of truth-telling
Van Veldhuizen's research looks specifically at the human factor in this legal process: How do you make a careful assessment of the truth when you depend on a person's story without official documents? Her specialisation within legal psychology focuses on truth-telling in legal proceedings, where cognitive processes play a central role. 'In hearing interviews, it's about how asylum seekers tell their story and how they convey important details and emotions. We see that some population groups naturally tell less elaborate stories. This can lead to misinterpretations, with potentially serious consequences for their future,' Van Veldhuizen explains.
The basis of her work is investigating the considerations that hearing and decision workers at the IND have to make. 'I do research into the way hearing and decision making is currently done. On the one hand, I compare the working method with legal psychology; how do you actually get good information from people? And how do you make sure this information is valid? On the other hand, I also look at the indicators used in the decision-making process. Are they valid?'
Employees at the IND are trained to assess the consistency and level of detail of stories. However, this is complicated by the fact that memories of traumatic events are often incomplete or confusing. Van Veldhuizen explains that the IND has introduced new guidelines where documents play a more important role than before. 'The problem is that many asylum seekers simply do not have documents. These people often can no longer obtain official documents, and therefore their story can be disregarded,' she says. 'This, she argues, makes it harder for staff to make a considered decision.'
The role of legal psychology in policy advice
Van Veldhuizen underlines the need for training programmes for IND employees. Especially for hearing and decision staff who also hear and decide on asylum seekers who are minors. In a master class, which she gives regularly, employees are trained to deal with cultural differences and not immediately doubt an asylum seeker's credibility if they are less consistent. 'You learn to put indicators such as level of detail and consistency in context, so that people are judged more fairly,' she explains.
Balancing truth with efficiency
The new asylum policy not only raises ethical questions but also potentially simplifies the IND's work, Van Veldhuizen argues. Indeed, by focusing on documents over stories, evidence becomes more objective and easier to measure, but is the process still fair? 'Strictly speaking, evidence becomes simpler, but does it really lead to fairer decisions?" wonders Van Veldhuizen. Her research shows that assessing stories and finding the truth remains complex precisely because the process requires not merely legal, but mainly human judgement.
Legal science, by offering new insights, can contribute to considered policy. 'We can never fully know the truth, but we can design our assessment process to make more just decisions,' says Van Veldhuizen. Ultimately, she hopes her findings will contribute to a fairer and more humane asylum policy in which both efficiency and justice are ensured.
