Page 131 - ประมวลสรุปความรู้เกี่ยวกับพิธีสารอิสตันบูลและพิธีสารมินนิโซตา

IV. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERVIEWS ISTANBUL PROTOCOL

of alleged victims and suspects. In fact, in some Istanbul Protocol. While the Istanbul Protocol and
countries, clinicians may be required in asylum its Principles may aid in the discovery of clinical
cases to opine on an alleged victim’s credibility in evidence of alleged torture or ill-treatment, the
order for the individual’s case to be considered. absence of physical and/or psychological evidence of
torture or ill-treatment, however, does not mean that
388. Clinical opinions on the credibility of an alleged it did not take place. Many factors may account for
victim or suspect should be considered in light of the the absence of physical and psychological findings
clinician’s expertise and circumscribed, if possible, to and documenting these factors can be useful in
the reliability of the clinical evidence and the extent to corroborating specific claims of torture or ill-treatment.
which the clinical evidence is consistent or inconsistent Unfortunately, in some instances, parties accused
with specific allegations of torture or ill-treatment. of torture or ill-treatment have misinterpreted
The reliability of clinical evidence is often based or deliberately misused the Istanbul Protocol by
on elements of internal and external consistency as successfully arguing that they should be exonerated
described in paragraphs 349–353 above. In situations when physical or psychological findings are absent,
in which courts request or require a clinician to render for example in the absence of diagnostic criteria for
an opinion on the credibility of individuals, rather PTSD. In such circumstances, misinterpretation or
than the clinical findings, the clinician should note that deliberate misuse of the standards enshrined in the
the credibility assessment of an individual is beyond Istanbul Protocol to disregard or conceal evidence
the scope of the Istanbul Protocol, which advises that of torture or ill-treatment may constitute a form
clinical opinions should be limited to opinions on the of complicity or other forms of responsibility.
reliability of the clinical evidence and the extent to
which the clinical evidence is consistent or inconsistent 391. In such circumstances and in the courts of some
with specific allegations of torture or ill-treatment. countries, misinterpretation or deliberate misuse of
such standards is likely to represent efforts by State
389. Clinicians are not advised to comment on the officials to disregard or conceal evidence of torture or
credibility of an alleged victim or suspect in their ill-treatment and, in some cases, prosecute individuals
medico-legal reports or witness testimony. If the for making “false allegations” against law enforcement
clinician is asked by a legal expert to provide officials. The inherent value of the Istanbul Protocol
an assessment of credibility, the clinician should is its capacity to discover clinical evidence that may
provide their assessment of the reliability of support specific claims of abuse. It is not a tool to
clinical evidence as it relates to credibility and be prove that a hypothetical act did not take place.
sure to distinguish their assessment and opinion
from a judicial determination of credibility. 392. In dismissing evidence of torture or ill-treatment, some
courts have also rejected relevant clinical opinions by
5. Limitations, misinterpretation or deliberate asserting incorrectly that they are beyond the remit
misuse of the Istanbul Protocol or expertise of the clinician. On the contrary, as
directed by the Istanbul Principles, all clinicians should
390. It is important to recognize limitations and potential always include opinions on the possibility of torture
misinterpretation or deliberate misuse of the or ill-treatment in their medico-legal evaluations. 417

417 In a 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Istanbul Protocol was recognized as an authoritative guidance on clinical evaluations of alleged torture
and ill-treatment, including the formulation of opinion on the possibility of torture as the cause of clinical findings. See United Kingdom, Supreme Court, KV (Sri Lanka) v.
Secretary of State for the Home Department, Judgment, 6 March 2019.

91