<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|>You are an expert on climate change, human mobility and migration. Answer the question truthfully.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|>Here are the title and abstract of a scientific paper probably related to climate change, human mobility and migration..
Title:"Assessing Testimonial Evidence in Asylum Proceedings: Guiding Standards from the International Criminal Tribunals."
Abstract:"Although credibility determinations rest at the core of refugee protection, international refugee law has failed to develop a body of evidentiary principles that is tailored to the unique dimensions of the testimony of those seeking asylum. This article examines recent developments in assessing oral testimony in international criminal law. International criminal law judges, like national asylum adjudicators, must transcend geographic, linguistic, cultural, educational and psychological barriers in order to assess the credibility of testimony. As a result, these new international courts have developed a body of principles of international evidence law for assessing the testimony of alleged victims of, and witnesses to, human rights abuses. Current social science research on the asylum procedures in several jurisdictions reveals that asylum decision makers often fail to adapt the determination process to account for the realities of refugees presenting their cases in legal fora, directing proceedings with a 'presumptive skepticism' of claims. It is argued that the nuanced and rigourous model for the assessment of the testimonial evidence of alleged victims and witnesses of human rights abuses in war crimes trials introduces effective international norms for the assessment of credibility in asylum proceedings.."
I have six questions you need to answer.
Q1: Is this article is about 'human migration mobility': 1 = yes; 0 = no. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q2: What drivers of migration and mobility does the article study? 0 = 'other', 1 = 'climate', 2 = 'environment', 3 = 'economic', 4 = 'conflict', 5 = 'political', 6 = 'social', 7 = 'family'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q3: What is the overall sentiment of the article?:0 = 'neutral', 1 = 'negative', 2 = 'positive'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q4: What type of climate or environmental keywords are explicitly mentioned?:  0 = 'none', 1 = 'algal blooms', 2 = 'infestation', 3 = 'infectious diseases', 4 = 'ocean acidification', 5 = 'sea ice', 6 = 'acid rain', 7 = 'drought', 8 = 'cold wave', 9 = 'heat wave', 10 = 'glacial', 11 = 'wildfire', 12 = 'air pollution', 13 = 'biodiversity loss', 14 = 'coastal erosion', 15 = 'land degradation', 16 = 'deforestation', 17 = 'desertification', 18 = 'water pollution', 19 = 'diebacks', 20 = 'permafrost loss', 21 = 'sand mining', 22 = 'sea level rise', 23 = 'earthquake', 24 = 'tsunami', 25 = 'volcanic', 26 = 'flood', 27 = 'avalanche', 28 = 'landslide', 29 = 'downburst', 30 = 'thunderstorm', 31 = 'sandstorm', 32 = 'haze', 33 = 'storm', 34 = 'cyclone', 35 = 'blizzard', 36 = 'hail', 37 = 'snow', 38 = 'tornado', 39 = 'wind', 40 = 'hurricane', 41 = 'typhoon', 42 = 'other'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q5: What discipline does the article belong to?: 0 = 'other', 1 = 'social science', 2 = 'natural science', 3 = 'arts and humanities', 4 = 'multidiscipline and interdiscipline'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q6: Does the article apply quantitative and/or statistical analysis?: 0 = 'no', 1 = 'yes'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Use the following template: 

Q1 = [];
Q2 = [];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [].<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|>Answer:

Assessing Testimonial Evidence in Asylum Proceedings: Guiding Standards from the International Criminal Tribunals
Although credibility determinations rest at the core of refugee protection, international refugee law has failed to develop a body of evidentiary principles that is tailored to the unique dimensions of the testimony of those seeking asylum. This article examines recent developments in assessing oral testimony in international criminal law. International criminal law judges, like national asylum adjudicators, must transcend geographic, linguistic, cultural, educational and psychological barriers in order to assess the credibility of testimony. As a result, these new international courts have developed a body of principles of international evidence law for assessing the testimony of alleged victims of, and witnesses to, human rights abuses. Current social science research on the asylum procedures in several jurisdictions reveals that asylum decision makers often fail to adapt the determination process to account for the realities of refugees presenting their cases in legal fora, directing proceedings with a 'presumptive skepticism' of claims. It is argued that the nuanced and rigourous model for the assessment of the testimonial evidence of alleged victims and witnesses of human rights abuses in war crimes trials introduces effective international norms for the assessment of credibility in asylum proceedings.