Incommunicado detention and torture in Spain, Part III: 'Five days is enough’: the concept of torturing environments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/torture.v26i3.109331Keywords:
torture, torturing environments, incommunicado detention, psychological torture, interrogation procedures, deception, Istanbul Protocol, manipulationAbstract
Background: Torture is changing in western societies, evolving from pain-producing torture to more subtle mixed psychological methods that are harder to detect. Despite this, there is not an adequate understanding of the complexities of contemporary psychological techniques used in coercive interrogation and torture.
Methods: The interrogation and torture techniques used on 45 detainees held in short-term incommunicado detention in Spain during the period 1980-2012 were analyzed. The list of torture categories set out in the Istanbul Protocol (IP) were assessed quantitatively. Software-aided qualitative analysis of the testimonies was conducted, using both inferential and deductive approaches to deduce a classification of torture techniques from the point of view of the survivor.
Findings: The most frequent methods according to the IP categories used against detainees were isolation and manipulation of environment (100%), humiliation (93%), psychological techniques to break down the individual (91%), threats (89%) and forced positions and physical exercises until extenuation (80%). Additionally, with a frequency of between 51 and 70%, mild but constant blows, being forced to witness the torture of others, hooding (mainly dry asphyxia) and unacceptable undue conditions of detention were also frequent. Sexual torture was also widespread with sexual violence (42%), forced nudity (38%) and rape (7%). Qualitative analysis showed that most detainees were submitted to coercive interrogation using a wide array of deceptive techniques. This is often a central part of the torturing process, frequently used in conjunction with many other methods. It was found that giving false or misleading information or making false accusations was most frequently used, followed by maximization of responsibility or facts and giving false information regarding relatives or friends. Different patterns of harsh interrogation, ill-treatment and torture are described that appear to have been tailored to the profile of Basque detainees.
Interpretation: The study shows the need to improve the conceptualization of psychological torture suggested by the IP. Key to this view is the idea that we must not concern ourselves with 'torture methods' but with Torturing Environments. The concept of Torturing Environments is defined and proposed as a focus for future study.
References
2. Rejali D. Torture and democracy. Princeton University Press; 2009.
3. Viñar M. Ulriksen M. Fracturas de la memoria. Crónicas de una memoria por venir. [Memory fractures. Chronicles of a memory to com]. Montevideo: Trilce; 1990.
4. Ojeda AE. What is psychological torture? In: AE Ojeda (ed). The trauma of psychological torture (pp 1-22). London: Praeger; 2008.
5. Pérez-Sales P. A new outlook for defining and measuring torturing environments. In: PérezSales P. Psychological torture. Definition, evaluation and measurement. London-New York; Routledge; 2016. pp 284-5.
6. Human Rights Watch. Setting an Example? Counterterrorism Measures in Spain, Vol. 17 num. 1 (D), 2005 January. Available from: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/ reports/ spain0105sp.pdf.
7. Amnesty International. Spain: adding insult to injury. The effective impunity of police officer’s in cases of torture and ill-treatment. Madrid; 2007.
8. De la Cuesta JL, Muñagorri I, editors. Application of terrorism regulations. Basque Institute of Criminology. University of Basque Country: Donostia; 2009.
9. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). Special recommendations after the visit of May 30 to June 13, 2011. Available from: http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/esp/2013-06inf-esp.pdf.
10. Rodley NS. The treatment of Prisoners under International Law. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press; 2009. p 460ss.
11. United Nations Economic and Social Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture. Civil and political rights, including the question of torture and detentions. Visit to Spain. E/CN.4/2004/56/add.2, 2004. Available from: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.2004.56. Add.2.En?Opendocument.
12. United Nations Human Rights Committee. María Cruz Achabal Puertas v. Spain, Communication No. 1945/2010, U.N. Doc. CCPR/ C/107/D/1945/2010 (2013).
13. Reid J, Buckley J. Criminal interrogation and confessions. Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2011.
14. Gudjonsson GH. The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
15. Kassin SM, Drizin SA, Grisso T, Gudjonsson GH, Leo RA, Redlich AD. Police-induced confessions. Law Hum Behav. 2010;34:3–38.
16. Pearse J, Gudjonsson GH. The Identification and Measurement of “Oppressive” Police Interviewing Tactics in Britain. In: Gudjonsson GH, editor. The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. A handbook. Wiley and Sons; 2003.
17. Argituz, AEN, Ekimen Elkartea, GAC, JaikiHadi, OME, OSALDE, Departamento de Psicología Social (UPV/EHU). Incommunicado detention and torture. Assessments using the Istanbul protocol. Ekimen Ed. and Irredentos Libros. Bilbao. 2014.
18. Kassin SM, Perillo JT, Appleby SC, Kukucka J. Confessions. In APA Handbook of Forensic Psychology. Vol 2. Criminal Investigation, Adjudication and Sentencing Outcomes. Washington DC; 2015. pp. 245–270.
19. Petersen HD, Jacobsen, P. Psychical and physical symptoms after torture. A prospective controlled study. Forensic Sci Int. 1985;29:179-89.
20. Biurrun JM. Las relaciones de tortura. Iralka editorial. San Sebastian; 1994.
21. Meana, JJ, Morentin B, Callado LF, Idoyaga MI. Prevalence of sexual torture in political dissidents. The Lancet 1995; 345:1307.
22. Arzuaga J. Oso Latza izan da. Tortura Euskal Herrian. [It has been so tough. Torture in the Basque Country] Euskal Memoria, Donostia-San Sebastian; 2012.
23. Torturaren Aurkako Taldea. Annual Reports (2000-2014). Available from: www.stoptortura. org
24. Basque Government Presidency. Torture: a scientific approach (2000-2008). Vitoria-Gasteiz; 2009.
25. Morentin B, Callado LF, Idoyaga MI. A follow-up study of allegations of ill-treatment/torture in incommunicado detainees in Spain: failure of international preventive mechanisms. Torture 2008;18:87-98.
26. Zander M. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Sweet & Maxwell; 2013.
27. Hess JE. Interviewing interrogation for law enforcement. Lexisnexis; 2010.
28. Physicians for Human Rights. Break them down. Systematic use of psychological torture by US forces. Washington: Physicians for Human Rights; 2005.
29. Busch J, Hansen SH, Hougen HP. Geographical distribution of torture: An epidemiological study of torture reported by asylum applicants examined at the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen. Torture 2015; 2: 12-21.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
We accept that some authors (e.g. government employees in some countries) are unable to transfer copyright. The Creative Commons Licence Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) covers both the Torture Journal and the IRCT web site. The publisher will not put any limitation on the personal freedom of the author to use material contained in the paper in other works which may be published, provided that acknowledgement is made to the original place of publication.
