Page 122 - ประมวลสรุปความรู้เกี่ยวกับพิธีสารอิสตันบูลและพิธีสารมินนิโซตา

ISTANBUL PROTOCOL IV. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERVIEWS

to multiple forms of abuse, often simultaneously. for a particular reason. Let the interviewee name these
This is often the case when an individual is subjected by differentiating among them and then address each
to repeated or prolonged episodes of torture or episode in turn, one at a time, to ask about in more
ill-treatment. Furthermore, individuals may have been detail. This instruction is even more important when
detained under conditions in which they lose a sense a child is being interviewed, as children are more
of time and place, for example, being kept blindfolded vulnerable to mixing up details from repeated events.
or held in solitary confinement in a dark cell, or in
a weakened state as a result of being deprived of 347. Inconsistencies between a person’s allegations of abuse
food, water and/or sleep. As such, individuals are and the findings of the evaluation may arise from
susceptible to making “source monitoring” errors, any or all of the aforementioned factors and should
in which they confuse one episode with another not be assumed to indicate untruthfulness. Clinicians
and find it difficult to say with certainty that the have a duty to pursue possible explanations of such
source of the information that they are providing inconsistencies. If possible, the clinician should ask
is from their memory of a specific episode. for further clarification. When this is not possible,
the clinician should look for other evidence that
344. Memory of events can be affected in one supports or refutes the account of events. A network
or more of at least three ways: of consistent supporting details can corroborate
and clarify the person’s allegations. Although the
(a) A failure to lay down memory (e.g. secondary to individual may not be able to provide the details
head injury or extreme emotional arousal); desired by the interviewer, such as dates, times, places,
frequencies and the exact identities of the perpetrators,
(b) Motivated forgetting of unpleasant memories; a broad outline of the alleged traumatic events will
emerge and stand up over time. In a judicial context,
(c) Impaired ability to recall. differences in the narrative obtained over time may be
interpreted as influencing the credibility assessment;
345. In extreme emotional arousal, when the body therefore, it is imperative that the testimony presented
is under threat, memory storage is impaired. by the evaluator include a discussion about how
Memories of traumatic experiences may as a result variability and inconsistency should be interpreted.
be fragmented and poorly located in the overall
context of chronology or location. Details central 348. It is important to recognize that some people falsely
to the experience are recalled better than peripheral allege torture for a range of reasons. Others may
details (date and number detail is particularly exaggerate a relatively minor experience for personal
poorly recalled), but even some details core to the or political reasons. The clinician must always
experience may not be reliably recalled. The ability be aware of these possibilities and try to identify
to recall and recount details of traumatic events possible exaggeration or fabrication. The clinician
may vary over time, particularly when an individual should keep in mind, however, that such fabrication
has PTSD. Differences in the history (particularly, requires detailed knowledge about trauma-related
variable ability to recall details about torture and symptoms that individuals rarely possess. Effective
ill-treatment experiences) obtained from interviews documentation of physical and psychological evidence
conducted at different times are to be expected. of torture or ill-treatment requires clinicians to have a
capacity to evaluate consistencies and inconsistencies
346. Interviewers should use judgment about how much in the report. If the clinician suspects fabrication,
specific detail is needed to document the alleged abuse. additional interviews should be scheduled to clarify
For example, if someone were repeatedly tortured the inconsistencies in the report. Family or friends
or raped, it may be unnecessary, or inappropriate, may be able to corroborate details of the account
to elicit all of the details about every episode. If it is of events. If the clinician conducts additional
important to elicit information about a number of examinations and still suspects fabrication, the
different episodes, ask the interviewee to identify the clinician should refer the individual to another
ones that they remember most clearly or were most clinician and ask for the colleague’s opinion. In
impactful. These might be the first occasion, the last some cases, the suspicion of fabrication should be
occasion, or a specific episode that was memorable documented with the opinion of two clinicians.

82