Exploratory study on the quality of forensic assessments using the Istanbul Protocol in a virtual versus face-to-face environment.

INTRODUCTION: With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic, most torture victim care centres had to adapt their forensic assessment methods and move to online methodologies. Therefore, it is essential to assess the advan-tages and disadvantages of this type of inter-vention, which seems to be here to stay. METHOD: Structured administered surveys were conducted with professionals (n=21) and with torture survivors (SoT) (n=21) from a sample of 21 Istanbul Protocols (IP). Compar-ing face-to-face (n=10) and remote (n=11) in-terviews in relation to the evaluation process, satisfaction, difficulties encountered, and compliance with therapeutic aspects. All as-sessments were primarily psychological. Three remote and four face-to-face interviews in-cluded a medical assessment. RESULTS: No significant problems were found in relation to the ethical requirements of the IP. Satisfaction with the process was pos-itive in both modalities. Regarding the online method, there were frequent connection prob-lems and a lack of adequate material resources in the remote assessments, requiring a signifi-cantly higher number of interviews in most cases. Survivors were more satisfied than eval-uators. Overall, the forensic experts described problems in complex cases with an under-standing of the person's emotional response, they established a bond, and they undertook psychotherapeutic interventions in the event of an emotional crisis during the assessment. In the face-to-face protocols, logistical and travel problems were frequent, which meant that fo-rensic work times had to be adapted. DISCUSSION: The two methodologies are not directly comparable but have specific issues to be studied and addressed. More invest-ment and adaptation in remote methodology is needed, especially given the poor economic situation of many SoT. Remote assessment is a valid alternative to face-to-face interviews in specific cases. However, there are very relevant human and therapeutic aspects that indicate that, whenever possible, face-to-face assess-ment should be preferred.

Torturing environments and multiple injuries in Mexican migration detention.

Mexico's role in the US-Central American migration regime is threefold: not only is it a country of origin, and a transit country, but also increasingly becoming a receiving country for migrants who flee from violence, insecurity and poverty. The Mexican state responds with detention enforcement. Clinical research usually puts emphasise on the negative impact of detention enforcement on the detainees' mental health. Yet, it often disregards the spatial configurations of detention centres and their socio-political context. This study aims to fill this gap by analysing how such factors create harmful environments that affect both the detainees' mental health and their social life in Mexico's migration detention centres. The study's mixed method approach builds on semi-structured interviews with a sample of N = 56 migrants of diverse nationalities and varying socioeconomic status of whom 22 were still detained while 34 had been released. The interviews include the Torturing Environment Scale (TES), a novel instrument for the analysis of detention environments, as well as clinical psychological measures of emotional distress. Additional n = 10 in-depth interviews with human rights advocates to explore the interconnections between the detention environments, their impact on mental health, and Mexican migration politics. Facultative counter-mappings of the detention centres complement the interviews. Without exception, all interviews of detainees underline that the manipulation of detention conditions creates torturing environments that cause harm to basic physiological and psychological needs. A comparison between detained vs. released interviewees revealed lasting feelings of fear and shame. The study emphasises that immigration detention immobilises migrants in a necropolitical limbo, which destroys hope as much as human integrity. It indicates that detention is part of deterrence politics, which perpetuates harm and inequality through detention and deportation. Highlighting structural human rights violations, the findings stress the need to review current migration policies.

Refugee Camps as Torturing Environments-An Analysis of the Conditions in the Moria Reception Center (Greece) Based on the Torturing Environment Scale.

BACKGROUND: European countries apply a policy of deterrence of migrants in territorial and extraterritorial border areas. The authors apply the model of torturing environments, which has been already applied to other contexts where persons are deprived of liberty, to the situation of the reception center of Moria, on the island of Lesvos (Greece). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the months of April and June of 2020. Personal interviews were conducted with 160 people (80 men, 80 women) from Afghan, Syrian, Somalian, and Congo backgrounds. The authors applied the Torturing Environmental Scale, which measures interpersonal violence, emotional distress, and legal safeguards. RESULTS: The findings confirm the inhumane living conditions for the people sheltered in Moria, documenting the severe suffering of the population due to elements linked to basic human functions (hunger, thirst, hygiene, overcrowding, temperature, etc.), actions that produce fear and distress, actions that produce helplessness and hopelessness, actions that cause physical pain, attacks on sexual integrity, and attacks on identity and the need to belong. Some of the data suggest that the purposive and intentionality elements of the definition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment were also met. CONCLUSIONS: According to the conceptual model of torturing environments, the Moria reception camp constitutes a space of systematic ill treatment that vulnerated the European legal standards related to torture (Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention). The idea of torturing environments provides a valuable avenue to assess human rights violations in collective spaces and could constitute a useful tool in forensic and litigation processes.

Uso inadecuado del Protocolo de Estambul en la evaluación de víctimas de tortura por profesionales forenses en México / Inadequate use of the Istanbul Protocol in the assessment of torture victims by forensic professionals in Mexico

Objetivo: Analizar las prácticas forenses en la Procuraduría General de la República (PGR), actual Fiscalía General de la República (FGR), en la aplicación del Protocolo de Estambul sobre tortura y tratos crueles, inhumanos o degradantes. Método: Auditoría del cumplimiento de 20 criterios (4 de buena praxis de investigación y 16 de validez de la documentación de la evidencia) mediante análisis de 54 dictámenes médico-psicológicos realizados por 21 médicos y 27 psicólogas/os de la PGR. La fiabilidad del instrumento de auditoría fue excelente (kappa=0,89). Resultados: Ninguno de los criterios de buena praxis fue respetado en 38 de los 54 dictámenes. Tampoco se cumplieron la mayoría de los 16 criterios sobre documentación de la evidencia de tortura. No hay diferencias de calidad en los protocolos anteriores y posteriores a la Ley de Prevención de la Tortura de 2017. Conclusiones: La utilización del Protocolo de Estambul en la PGR/FGR es inadecuada. (AU)

Objective: To analyse forensic practices in the Attorney General's Office (previously PGR by its acronym in Spanish, and FGR at present), in the application of the Istanbul Protocol on torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Method: Auditing of the fulfillment of 20 criteria (4 of good research practice, 16 of validity of the evidence documentation) through the analysis of 54 medical-psychological reports made by 21 doctors and 27 psychologists of the PGR/FGR. The reliability of the assessment instrument was excellent (kappa=0.89). Results: None of the good practice criteria was respected in 38 of the 54 opinions. Nor were most of the 16 criteria on documentation of evidence of torture met. There are no quality differences in the protocols before and after the Prevention of Torture Act of 2017. Conclusions: The use of the Istanbul Protocol in the PGR/FGR is inadequate (AU)

[Inadequate use of the Istanbul Protocol in the assessment of torture victims by forensic professionals in Mexico]. / Uso inadecuado del Protocolo de Estambul en la evaluación de víctimas de tortura por profesionales forenses en México.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse forensic practices in the Attorney General's Office (previously PGR by its acronym in Spanish, and FGR at present), in the application of the Istanbul Protocol on torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. METHOD: Auditing of the fulfillment of 20 criteria (4 of good research practice, 16 of validity of the evidence documentation) through the analysis of 54 medical-psychological reports made by 21 doctors and 27 psychologists of the PGR/FGR. The reliability of the assessment instrument was excellent (kappa=0.89). RESULTS: None of the good practice criteria was respected in 38 of the 54 opinions. Nor were most of the 16 criteria on documentation of evidence of torture met. There are no quality differences in the protocols before and after the Prevention of Torture Act of 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Istanbul Protocol in the PGR/FGR is inadequate.