Search

Introduction. The use of threats remains prevalentin law enforcement practices in manyparts of the world. In studies with torture survivors,credible and immediate threats havebeen considered a distinctly harmful methodof torture. Notwithstanding this prevalence,there is a considerable degree of difficulty inlegally substantiating and establishing harmsproduced by threatening acts. It is also generallydifficult to clearly identify the harmsthat go beyond the fear and stress inherent(therefore not unlawful) in law enforcementpractices. We present a Protocol on Medico-Legal Documentation of Threats. The aimof the Protocol is to improve documentationand assessment of harms so that stronger legalclaims can be submitted to local and internationalcomplaints mechanisms.Methods. The Protocol has been developedbased on a methodology initiated by the PublicCommittee against Torture in Israel (PCATI),REDRESS and the DIGNITY - Danish Instituteagainst Torture (DIGNITY) involving:compilation and review of health and legalknowledge on threats; initial drafting by thelead author; discussion among the members ofthe International Expert Group on PsychologicalTorture; pilot-testing in Ukraine by localNGO Forpost; adjustments were made accordingto the results of the pilot study.Results. We present the final Protocol anda Quick Interviewing Guide. This Protocol iscognisant of the significance of the specificsocial, cultural, and political contexts in whichthreats are made and might be subjected to adaptationsto specific contexts. We hope that itwill improve the documentation of threats asa torture method or as part of a torturing environment,as well as inform efforts on theirprevention more broadly.

Introduction. This Protocol originates froma joint project regarding documentation ofpsychological torture initiated by the PublicCommittee against Torture in Israel (PCATI),REDRESS and DIGNITY - Danish InstituteAgainst Torture (DIGNITY) in 2015 afterthe Copenhagen Conference on PsychologicalTorture. The project is a vehicle to establisha common understanding between healthand legal professions as to how to best ensurethe most accurate documentation of torture.The aim of the Protocol is to improve documentationof solitary confinement and thereforeto clarify the facts of the case so thatstronger legal claims can subsequently be submittedto local and international complaintsmechanisms. The Protocol has been developedbased on a methodology involving a compilationand review of legal and health knowledgeon solitary confinement and discussionsamong the authors and in a group of internationalexperts.Methods and Results. This Protocol iscognisant of the significance of the specificsocial, cultural and political contexts in whichsolitary confinement is used. We hope that thisProtocol will assist in the discussions betweenthe various stakeholders and provide guidanceon what can be documented and how to documenttorture.

Background: Fear is a central dimension of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (hereafter ‘other ill-treatment’), particularly as a part of verbal or non-verbal threats. Adjudicators and policy-makers have grappled, arguably at a greater depth than with other methods of psychological torture, with the circumstances in which fear-based methods amount to torture or other ill-treatment. The pursuit of non-coercive standards of police interrogation has further underscored the need to better distinguish the prohibited from the permitted. Upon this background, this article reviews the existing jurisprudential and social scientific literature in formulating a lens through which fear-inducing methods could be better functionally conceptualised. Method: This article has identified, through systematic full-text search of databases, texts with keywords ‘threat’, ‘fear’, ‘coercion’, ‘intimidation’, ‘distress’, ‘anguish’ and ‘psychological pressure’. The identified texts, limited to English-language journal articles, NGO reports, court-cases and UN documents from 1950 to date, were then selected for relevance pertaining to conceptual, evidentiary and legal critique provided therein. Discussion: Whilst it is broadly recognized that the deployment of fear to inflict violence can amount to torture, methods of threats or coercion are not adequately conceptualized particularly at the lower end, i.e. routine interrogational torture. Here, principles pertaining to the legitimate use of force and minimum level of severity are used as functional guidelines to distinguish the prohibited from the permitted. The power, practice and proximity of state authorities to harm necessarily qualify threats as real, immediate and credible and therefore torturous.

Much scholarly space has been devoted to exploring politics, state-(trans)formation, conflict, and human rights in Myanmar. Against this backdrop, the legally-oriented scholarship has also been pre...