What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on A.2.5.3 Countries and international organizations to which PII can be transferred?

Documented destination list covering the organization and its subcontractors; Evidence the list is available to customers and kept current; Reconciliation between destinations and the transfer bases held; Maintenance process triggered by supply chain and regional change.

What is the most common gap auditors find on A.2.5.3?

Destination list covering hosting regions while support, monitoring and development locations are omitted

ISO/IEC 27701:2025 · Annex A Table A.2 PIMS controls for PII processors

`A.2.5.3` Countries and international organizations to which PII can be transferred

The organization must set out and document every country and international organization that personal data may end up being sent to, including destinations that result from subcontracted processing, make that list available to customers, and check the destinations against the documented basis for transfer. It should recognise that a transfer requested by law enforcement may involve countries that cannot be named beforehand, or whose naming is forbidden in order to keep an investigation confidential.

Source: ISO/IEC 27701:2025, A.2.5.3. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open ISO/IEC 27701:2025 in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Document repository

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Evidence the list is available to customers and kept current · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Documented destination list covering the organization and its subcontractors · Document repository
Reconciliation between destinations and the transfer bases held · Document repository
Maintenance process triggered by supply chain and regional change · Document repository

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Destination list covering hosting regions while support, monitoring and development locations are omitted
Subcontractor destinations excluded, which is the most common gap and the one customers most need
List published at onboarding and never refreshed as the platform expands regionally
Destinations listed with no transfer basis behind some of them
Follow the sun support arrangements not recognised as creating destinations

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

A.2.5.2 Basis for PII transfer between jurisdictions · A.2.5.4 Records of PII disclosures to third parties