Pérez-Sales Pau, Morentin Benito, Barrenetxea Olatz, Navarro-Lashayas Miguel Angel
Hospital La Paz, Spain. SiR[a] Centre, GAC Community Action Group and Hospital La Paz, Spain.Correspondence to:
Torture. 2016;26(3):8-20.
The Istanbul Protocol (IP) is the key instrument in the documentation of allegations of torture. However, few scientific studies have evaluated its effectiveness as a tool to assess credibility of allegations of ill-treatment or torture.
Present data on the credibility of allegations of torture in a sample of 45 Basque people held in short-term incommunicado detention between 1980 and 2012, using a modified version of the Standard Evaluation Form for Credibility Assessment (SEC), a new tool to assess credibility based on the IP.
Each case was evaluated by two psychiatrists, a psychologist and a physician through a layered system of simultaneous, independent assessments, blind audits and peer-review processes. Clinical interviews following the IP were contrasted with psychometric tests and external documentary evidence by independent experts. All available data were structured using the SEC and cases were accordingly classified as having Maximum consistency, Highly Consistent, Consistent or Inconsistent.
According to the SEC, 53% of allegations of torture were considered to have Maximum Consistency, 31% Highly consistent, 15% Consistent and 0% Inconsistent. The items that most contributed to the overall credibility assessment came from the psychological evaluation, including the description of alleged torture, emotional reactions, objective functional changes, changes in identity and worldviews and clinical diagnosis. There was little contribution from previous medical reports.
When applied competently, the IP is an essential tool in the documentation of torture. Our study shows: (a) evidence that allegations of ill-treatment and torture in the Basque Country are consistent and credible, being ascertained beyond reasonable doubt and aside from any political debate; (b) the wider use of the IP as a tool to assess credibility of allegations of ill-treatment and torture; and, (c) the usefulness of the SEC as a tool. The SEC can help as a tool for documenting torture in contexts where there are political differences and figures are distorted as a result of polarized political debates, and where legal documentation is needed for judicial purposes. Forensic science can help by providing an objective assessment of the credibility of allegations.
《伊斯坦布尔议定书》（IP）是记录酷刑指控的关键工具。然而，很少有科学研究评估其作为评估虐待或酷刑指控可信度工具的有效性。
使用基于《伊斯坦布尔议定书》的新的可信度评估工具——可信度评估标准评估表（SEC）的修订版，呈现1980年至2012年期间被短期单独拘留的45名巴斯克人的酷刑指控可信度数据。
由两名精神科医生、一名心理学家和一名医生通过同步、独立评估、盲审和同行评审的分层系统对每个案例进行评估。遵循《伊斯坦布尔议定书》进行的临床访谈与独立专家进行的心理测试和外部文件证据进行对比。所有可用数据都使用SEC进行整理，案例据此被分类为具有最大一致性、高度一致、一致或不一致。
根据SEC，53%的酷刑指控被认为具有最大一致性，31%高度一致，15%一致，0%不一致。对整体可信度评估贡献最大的项目来自心理评估，包括对所称酷刑的描述、情绪反应、客观功能变化、身份和世界观的变化以及临床诊断。以前的医疗报告贡献很小。
如果运用得当，《伊斯坦布尔议定书》是记录酷刑的重要工具。我们的研究表明：（a）有证据表明巴斯克地区的虐待和酷刑指控是一致且可信的，在排除任何政治辩论的情况下，被确定无疑；（b）更广泛地使用《伊斯坦布尔议定书》作为评估虐待和酷刑指控可信度的工具；以及（c）SEC作为一种工具的有用性。在存在政治分歧且由于两极分化的政治辩论导致数据失真以及司法目的需要法律文件的情况下，SEC可以作为记录酷刑的工具发挥作用。法医学可以通过对指控的可信度提供客观评估来提供帮助。
