Protocol on medico-legal documentation of threats.

NTRODUCTION: The use of threats remains prev-alent in law enforcement practices in many parts of the world. In studies with torture sur-vivors, credible and immediate threats have been considered a distinctly harmful method of torture. Notwithstanding this prevalence, there is a considerable degree of difficulty in legally substantiating and establishing harms produced by threatening acts. It is also gen-erally difficult to clearly identify the harms that go beyond the fear and stress inherent (therefore not unlawful) in law enforcement practices. We present a Protocol on Medico-Legal Documentation of Threats. The aim of the Protocol is to improve documentation and assessment of harms so that stronger legal claims can be submitted to local and interna-tional complaints mechanisms. METHODS: The Protocol has been developed based on a methodology initiated by the Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI), REDRESS and the DIGNITY - Danish In-stitute against Torture (DIGNITY) involving: compilation and review of health and legal knowledge on threats; initial drafting by the lead author; discussion among the members of the International Expert Group on Psycholog-ical Torture; pilot-testing in Ukraine by local NGO Forpost; adjustments were made ac-cording to the results of the pilot study. RESULTS: We present the final Protocol and a Quick Interviewing Guide. This Protocol is cognisant of the significance of the specific social, cultural, and political contexts in which threats are made and might be subjected to ad-aptations to specific contexts. We hope that it will improve the documentation of threats as a torture method or as part of a torturing en-vironment, as well as inform efforts on their prevention more broadly.

Protocol on medico-legal documentation of solitary confinement.

INTRODUCTION: This Protocol originates from a joint project regarding documentation of psychological torture initiated by the Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI), REDRESS and DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture (DIGNITY) in 2015 after the Copenhagen Conference on Psychologi-cal Torture. The project is a vehicle to estab-lish a common understanding between health and legal professions as to how to best ensure the most accurate documentation of torture.The aim of the Protocol is to improve docu-mentation of solitary confinement and therefore to clarify the facts of the case so that stron-ger legal claims can subsequently be submitted to local and international complaints mecha-nisms. The Protocol has been developed based on a methodology involving a compilation and review of legal and health knowledge on soli-tary confinement and discussions among the authors and in a group of international experts. METHODS AND RESULTS: This Protocol is cognisant of the significance of the specific social, cultural and political contexts in which solitary confinement is used. We hope that this Protocol will assist in the discussions between the various stakeholders and provide guidance on what can be documented and how to doc-ument torture.

Hunger and torture. Assessing the adequacy of prison food under international law.

BACKGROUND: Deprivation of prisoner food, in terms of its quality and quantity, has generally been accepted as violating the prohibition of torture and related ill-treatment, particularly when combined with other factors (i.e., harmful conditions and practices). Aspects relevant to assessing when and how food provision is considered inadequate, however, remain complex and confusing. This article presents a doctrinal review which consolidates normative understandings of adequate prisoner food. METHOD: A systematic full-text search was made of international and regional normative standards, case-law and commentary in relevant databases. These were then selected based on their relevance for regulatory and explanatory specificity and pertinence to detention contexts. FINDINGS: International and regional bodies directly connect the adequacy of food to respect for dignity, freedom from torture and ill-treatment as well as the right to health - and particularly as depending on duration, quality, quantity and variety. What constitutes inadequate food remains complex as it is contingent on both material and non-material considerations, including its quality (content, nutritiousness, edibility, variety, wholesomeness), its quantity (calorie, substantiveness, balance), its preparation (hygiene, respect to the individual and community), its provision and consumption (when, how and where it is to be eaten, regularity, accessibility, warmth/cold), its socio-cultural suitability (to religious and cultural values) and its developmental suitability (for pregnant or breast-feeding mothers and children).

Perception, practice and proximity. Qualifying threats as psychological torture in international law.

BACKGROUND: International law prohibits threats made by state officials when amounting to torture or other forms of ill-treatment (hereafter "ill-treatment"). Yet, there remains a pressing need to better distinguish in practice the threatening acts which amount to torture or illtreatment (and as prohibited) from acts which fall short. Responding to this need, this article reviews the literature and offers a discussion towards functionally conceptualising and, in turn, qualifying threats as torture or ill-treatment. METHOD: Following a systematic full-text search of databases with the relevant Englishlanguage keywords, journal articles, NGO reports, case-law and UN documents were selected based on their relevance for conceptual, evidentiary and legal critique of threatsas- torture. DISCUSSION: Prevailing legal reasoning around threats-as-torture centres on the words "real, credible and immediate", with inadequate explication as to their application. To this end, this article proposes that an assessment of the perception of practice and proximity of state authorities to harm could be used to help qualify threats as "real, credible and immediate" and therefore torturous.

"Befogging reason, undermining will: Understanding the prohibition of sleep deprivation as torture and ill-treatment in international law.

BACKGROUND: Sleep deprivation is a prevalent method of psychological torture. However, difficulties in documentation have meant that it is not adequately appreciated by courts and other quasijudicial institutions such as UN treaty bodies. METHOD: This paper aims to review the legal literature on deprivation of sleep, the definition, and prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, and its health impacts. A number of texts were identified and analyzed based on contextual relevance: criminal justice processes as well as medical literature on health impacts. The texts were identified via a search of key legal and health databases using the search terms "sleep deprivation," "sleep adjustment," and "sleep regulation." These texts were limited to English-language journal articles, NGO reports, court-cases and UN documents since 1950. They were then analyzed for their approaches to conceptualizing sleep deprivation from the perspective of assessing "severe pain and suffering" and the "diminishment of mental capacity". RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Sleep deprivation is an ill-defined and, in turn, poorly documented method of torture, particularly when prolonged or inflicted in combination with other methods (e.g., threats) and conditions (e.g., disruptive environment or time of day). More nuanced legal principles, informed by medical evidence, are lacking. Applying these principles would sharpen its conceptualization.

Protocol on Medico-Legal Documentation of Sleep Deprivation.

This Protocol originates from a joint project regarding documentation of psychological torture initiated by the Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI), REDRESS and DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture (DIGNITY) in 2015 after the Copenhagen Conference on Psychological Torture. The project is a vehicle to establish a common understanding between health and legal professions as to how to best ensure the most accurate documentation of torture. Historically, sleep deprivation has been used for different objectives but, primarily, to cause stress and duress for the purpose of extracting information and confessions. Detention centers with poor conditions is another context in which sleep deprivation, as a consequence of sleep disruption, takes place. This is often due to overcrowding, insufficient or no mattresses, and poor conditions of transportation between the courts and detention facilities. The aim of the Protocol is to improve documentation of sleep deprivation used in such settings (most often during interrogation) and therefore to clarify the facts of the case so that stronger legal claims can subsequently be submitted to local and international complaints mechanisms. The Protocol has been developed based on a methodology involving: compilation and review of legal and health knowledge on sleep deprivation, also in non-torture contexts; drafting by first author; discussion in the group of international experts; pilot- testing by PCATI; and evaluation by the three organizations and the group of experts. Despite generic elements of sleep deprivation, the context in a specific country will determine many aspects of the factual situation. Each context differs and as such this Protocol could serve as a guideline or a checklist of elements to be considered in a specific context. We hope that this Protocol will assist in the discussions between the various stakeholders and provide guidance on what can be documented and how to document sleep deprivation.