The documentation of torture and other ill-treatment depends on the gathering of detailed and accurate information from the individual on the circumstances of the alleged events, including details of any arrest, detention, conditions of detention and specific treatment while under interrogation. The interview should be structured and conducted according to the guidelines defined in “the general considerations for the interview”, “procedural safeguards” and “medical ethics” chapters of the Istanbul Protocol. These considerations apply to all persons carrying out interviews whether they are lawyers, medical doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, human rights monitors or members of any other profession. Interview considerations that pertain specifically to the documentation of physical and psychological evidence of torure are included in Modules 5 and 6 respectively.
Torture is usually both physical and psychological in nature. It is important, therefore, for each clinician to elicit and relate physical and psychological information in their evaluations. It should be noted that, with appropriate training, physicians may become qualified to conduct psychological evaluations. Those who are not qualified, should refer the alleged victim to a qualified psychological expert (i.e. psychologist, psychiatrist, clinical social worker). Medical doctors should carefully consider the potential benefits and possible difficulties of qualifying as a psychological expert. It may be helpful to seek the advice of attorneys to better understand country-specific requirements to qualify as an expert witness on on psychological evidence of torture.
The degree of detail gathered during an interview with an alleged victim of torture depends on several factors, such as the aim of the interview/examination (producing a note in a medical record of incidental findings during a routine medical visit, versus being asked to provide a medical report for a judicial body), the location and circumstances of the interview (for example in a health clinic, in a police station or prison, or in a rehabilitation centre for survivors of torture) and the degree of access to the individual and amount of time available. This being said, the principles on interviewing can be adapted and applied to the various circumstances in which an individual alleging torture may be encountered.
Clinicians should not assume that the individual, such as the asylum applicant’s attorney, requesting a medico-legal evaluation has related all the material facts. It is the clinician’s responsibility to discover and report upon any material findings that he or she considers relevant, even if they may be considered irrelevant or adverse to the case of the party requesting the medical examination. Findings that are consistent with torture or other forms of ill-treatment must not be excluded from a medico-legal report under any circumstance.