Page 118 - ประมวลสรุปความรู้เกี่ยวกับพิธีสารอิสตันบูลและพิธีสารมินนิโซตา

ISTANBUL PROTOCOL IV. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERVIEWS

with prisoners should respect medical ethics and its Principles and international/regional standards
should be capable of carrying out their professional for monitoring places of deprivation of liberty.
duties independently of any third-party influence. If
the medico-legal examination supports allegations 318. Interviews with persons who are still in custody,
of torture or ill-treatment, the detainee should not and possibly even in the hands of the perpetrators of
be returned to the place of detention, but rather torture or ill-treatment, will obviously be very different
should appear before the prosecutor or judge to from interviews in the privacy and security of an
determine the detainee’s legal disposition. 408 A outside medical facility. The importance of obtaining
national medical association or a commission of the person’s trust in such situations cannot be stressed
inquiry may choose to audit medico-legal reports enough. However, it is even more important not to
to ensure that adequate procedural safeguards and betray that trust, perhaps unwittingly. All precautions
documentation standards are adhered to, particularly should be taken to ensure that detainees do not place
by clinicians employed by, and conducting an official themselves in danger. Detainees who allege being
evaluation on behalf of, the State. Reports should tortured or ill-treated should be asked whether they
be sent to such an organization, provided issues of have concerns that the information they provide in
independence and confidentiality have been addressed. the evaluation can be used against them and in which
way. For example, they may be too afraid to allow
5. Official visits to places of detention use of their names, fearing reprisals. Interviewers,
clinicians and interpreters should not make promises
316. Visits to persons deprived of their liberty can, in to detainees that they are not able to fulfil.
some cases, be notoriously difficult to carry out in
an objective and professional way, particularly in 319. The location of an interview should be considered
countries in which torture is still being practised. carefully, out of sight and hearing of security officers,
A one-time visit, without follow-up to ensure the to ensure confidentiality. The possible presence of
safety of the interviewees after the visit, may risk cameras, microphones and/or one-way mirrors should
the well-being of detainees even further. The notion also be considered, especially if a police interview room
that some evidence is better than no evidence is is used. Interviews should typically take place with the
not valid when working with persons deprived of informed consent of interviewees, in a comfortable
their liberty who might be put in danger by giving room in which they do not feel intimidated.
testimony. Well-meaning interviewers may fall into Interviewers should avoid places that may hold
the trap of visiting a prison or police station and memories of traumatic experiences for some detainees
obtaining an incomplete or false picture of reality. or simply be associated with abusive authority.
They may give an alibi to the perpetrators of torture or
ill-treatment, who may exploit the fact that outsiders 320. A clear dilemma may arise in cases in which a
visited their prison and did not report findings of visiting team finds that widespread and systematic
abuse. There may be value in unannounced visits or acts of torture and ill-treatment are practised in a
freedom to choose which detention setting to visit given place of deprivation of liberty, but all victims
because authorities may take advantage of prior refuse to allow interviewers to use their evaluations
notice to conceal evidence or silence prisoners. out of fear of reprisals. Clinicians must preserve
confidentiality and avoid betraying the individuals’
317. Independent commissions constituted by jurists and trust through unilateral decisions to report the abuses.
clinicians should be given periodic access to visit When confronted with this type of situation, in
places of detention and prisons. Monitoring visits, which a number of detainees may show clear signs of
including by human rights investigators, national abuse, such as marks on their bodies of whippings,
human rights institutions or national preventative beatings, lacerations, etc., but who all refuse to
mechanisms, should include qualified legal and clinical allow mention of their cases, it is useful to organize
experts to ensure that interviews with detainees are a “health inspection” of the whole ward in full view
consistent with the Istanbul Protocol and its Principles in the courtyard. In that way, the visiting clinical
(see chap. VII). Members of national preventative interviewers can directly observe the visible signs of
mechanisms should be familiar with the standards torture on the individuals and make a report on what
and recommendations in the Istanbul Protocol and they have seen without having to state that individuals

408 “Health care for prisoners: implications of ‘Kalk’s refusal’”, Lancet, vol. 337, No. 8742 (1991), pp. 647–648.

78