The Istanbul Protocol outlines some specific guidelines for forensic examiners to use when conducting evaluations. The purpose is to elicit information in a humane and effective manner. During the evaluation, examiners should pay attention to the psychosocial history of the alleged victim. Relevant psychosocial history may include inquiries into “…the person’s daily life, relations with friends and family, work or school, occupation, interests, future plans and use of alcohol and drugs.” Information about any prescription drugs is important, since the discontinuation of any medications during custody could affect the detainee’s health. Health professionals should be aware of the following considerations in the course of conducting their medical evaluations (see Module 3 for a detailed discussion):
- Informed Consent: Health professionals must ensure that individuals understand the potential benefits and potential adverse consequences of an evaluation and that the individual has the right to refuse the evaluation.
- Confidentiality: Health professionals and interpreters have a duty to maintain confidentiality of information and to disclose information only with the alleged victim’s consent.
- Setting: The location of the interview and examination should be as safe and comfortable as possible, including access to toilet facilities. Sufficient time should be allotted to conduct a detailed interview and examination.
- Control: The professional conducting the interview/examination should inform the alleged victim that he or she can take a break if needed or to choose not to respond to any question or to stop the process at any time.
- Earning Trust: Trust is an essential component of eliciting an accurate account of abuse. Earning the trust of one who has experienced torture and other forms of abuse requires active listening, meticulous communication, courtesy, and genuine empathy and honesty.
- Translators: Professional, bicultural interpreters are often preferred, but may not be available.
- Preparation for the Interview: Health professionals should read relevant material in order to understand the context of the alleged abuse and to anticipate regional torture practises.
- Interview Techniques: Initially, questions should be open-ended, allowing a narration of the trauma without many interruptions. Closed questions are often used to add clarity to a narrative account or to carefully redirect the interview if the individual wanders off the subject.
- Past Medical History: The health professional should obtain a complete medical history, including prior medical, surgical or psychiatric problems. Be sure to document any history of injuries before the period of detention or abuse, and note any possible after-effects.
- Trauma History: Leading questions should be avoided. Inquiries should be structured to elicit a chronological account of the events experienced during detention. Specific historical information may be useful in corroborating accounts of abuse. For example, a detailed account of the individual’s observations of acute lesions—and the subsequent healing process—often represents an important source of evidence in corroborating specific allegations of torture or ill-treatment. Also, historical information may help to correlate individual accounts of abuse with established regional practises. Useful information may include descriptions of torture devices, body positions, and methods of restraint; descriptions of acute and chronic wounds and disabilities; and information about perpetrators’ identities and place(s) of detention.
- Review of Torture Methods: It complements the trauma history to explore abuses that could have been forgotten or avoided by the alleged victim due to their nature (e.g. rape). The review is not intended to be an exhaustive checklist; it should be individually tailored according to the trauma history or to the relevant regional or local practices.
- Pursuit of Inconsistencies: An alleged victim’s testimony may, at first, appear inconsistent unless further information is gathered. Factors that may interfere with an accurate recounting of past events may include: blindfolding, disorientation, lapses in consciousness, organic brain damage, psychological sequelae of abuse, fear of personal risk or risk to others, and lack of trust in the examining clinician.
- Nonverbal Information: Include observations of nonverbal information such as affect and emotional reactions in the course of the trauma history and note the significance of such information.
- Transference and Counter-transference Reactions: Health professionals who conduct medical evaluations should be aware of the potential emotional reactions that evaluations of trauma may elicit in the interviewee and interviewer. These emotional reactions are known as transference and counter-transference. For example, mistrust, fear, shame, rage, and guilt are among the typical transference reactions that torture survivors experience, particularly when asked to recount details of their trauma. In addition, the clinician’s emotional responses to the torture survivor, known as counter-transference (eg, horror, disbelief, depression, anger, over-identification, nightmares, avoidance, emotional numbing, and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness), may affect the quality of the evaluation. Considering survivors’ extreme vulnerability and propensity to re-experience their trauma when it is either recognised or treated, it is critical that health professionals maintain a clear perspective in the course of their evaluations.
The Istanbul Protocol also provides a series of guidelines to ensure procedural safeguards for medical evaluations of detainees alledging torture and ill-treatment (see Procedural Safeguards for Detaines below).
