Tavolzhanska Yu, Grynchak S, Pcholkin V, Fedosova O
1Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine.
2Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs, Ukraine.
Georgian Med News. 2020 Oct(307):185-193.
The aim of the study is to identify the features and to determine the relationship between medical and legal (investigative & judicial) practice on detection of the torture effects. It is emphasized that the paper is a continuation of the thesis study on the criminal law problems of torture, which were prepared by the Department of Criminal Law No. 1, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine. During the preparation of this article, the following material were used: the publications issued by the centers for rehabilitation of torture victims, specialized medical journals, manuals for physicians, publications by the IASP and the Ukrainian Association for the Study of Pain, explanations by leading specialists of Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine, UN reports, OHCHR official explanations, international treaties on prohibition of torture, criminal codes of post-Soviet countries. The empirical basis of the study was provided by 41 final decisions of the court on torture cases of taken since 2014 till 2019. To achieve the aim of the study the analysis and induction methods, as well as statistical and systemic methods were applied. According to the results of the study, it is concluded that only the joint medical and legal detection of severe pain and suffering is the key to the correct solution of the issue of presence or absence of the torture effects. It is noted that neither medical nor law enforcement assessments are self-sufficient and require addition of the mutual contexts. Attention is drawn to the fact that development of the guidelines on the joint medical and legal detection of severe pain and suffering is one of the main tasks for the scientific community. It is proved that the peculiarity of medical practice on detecting the effects of torture consist of is the need to determine both statutory (severe pain and suffering) and "remote" (physical, psychosomatic and mental) effects of this crime. The reasonable arguments are put forward that the specificity of legal (investigative & judicial) practice in detection of severe pain and suffering (as effects of torture) is associated with the need to use a wide range of tools: scientific and legal methods used for determination of severe pain and suffering, medical reports on intensity of pain and suffering, medical documentation on fixation of "remote" effects of torture, reports on forensic, psychological and psychiatric examinations, testimonies and protocols of interrogation of the victim and witnesses, protocols of inspection of crime-committing scene, search, investigative experiment, inspection of material evidence, etc.
本研究的目的是确定特征，并确定医疗实践与法律（调查及司法）实践在检测酷刑影响方面的关系。需要强调的是，本文是对乌克兰哈尔科夫雅罗斯拉夫·穆德里国立法律大学刑法系第一教研室所准备的关于酷刑刑法问题的论文研究的延续。在撰写本文过程中，使用了以下资料：酷刑受害者康复中心发布的出版物、专业医学期刊、医生手册、国际疼痛研究协会和乌克兰疼痛研究协会的出版物、乌克兰基辅博戈莫列茨国立医科大学、乌克兰利沃夫丹尼洛·哈利茨基利沃夫国立医科大学顶尖专家的解释、联合国报告、人权高专办官方解释、禁止酷刑的国际条约、后苏联国家的刑法典。该研究的实证依据是2014年至2019年期间法院对酷刑案件作出的41项终审判决。为实现研究目的，采用了分析与归纳方法以及统计和系统方法。根据研究结果得出结论，只有医疗和法律共同检测严重疼痛和痛苦，才是正确解决是否存在酷刑影响这一问题的关键。需要指出的是，医学评估和执法评估都不充分，需要相互补充背景信息。值得注意的是，制定关于共同进行医疗和法律检测严重疼痛和痛苦的指导方针是科学界的主要任务之一。事实证明，医疗实践在检测酷刑影响方面的特殊性在于需要确定该罪行法定的（严重疼痛和痛苦）以及“间接的”（身体、身心和精神）影响。合理的观点认为，法律（调查及司法）实践在检测严重疼痛和痛苦（作为酷刑影响）方面的特殊性在于需要使用广泛的工具：用于确定严重疼痛和痛苦的科学和法律方法、关于疼痛和痛苦强度的医学报告、关于固定酷刑“间接影响”的医学文件、法医、心理和精神病学检查报告、受害者和证人的讯问证词及记录、犯罪现场检查记录、搜查、侦查实验、物证检查等。
