A comparative study of the use of the Istanbul Protocol amongst civil society organizations in low-income countries

Authors

  • Tobias Kelly School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
  • Steffen Jensen DIGNITY: Danish Institute Against Torture, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Morten Koch Andersen DIGNITY: Danish Institute Against Torture, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Catrine Christiansen Independent consultant
  • Jeevan Raj Sharma School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7146/torture.v26i3.109501

Keywords:

human rights documentation, Istanbul Protocol, Low-Income Countries, torture and ill-treatment, legal resources, allegations

Abstract

The Istanbul Protocol (IP) is one of the great success stories of the global anti-torture movement, setting out universal guidelines for the production of rigorous, objective and reliable evidence about allegations of torture and ill-treatment. The IP is explicitly designed to outline ‘minimum standards for States’. However, it is all too often left to civil society organizations to investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment. In this context, important questions remain as to how and where the IP can be used best by such organizations. These questions are particularly acute in situations where human rights groups may have limited institutional capacity. This paper explores the practical challenges faced by civil society in using the IP in Low-Income Countries. It is based on qualitative research in three case studies: Nepal, Kenya, and Bangladesh. This research involved over 80 interviews with human rights practitioners. The conclusions of the paper are that the Istanbul Protocol provides a useful framework for documentation, but more comprehensive forms of documentation will often be limited to a very small – albeit important - number of legal cases. In many cases, the creation of precise and standardized forms of evidence is not necessarily the most effective form of documentation for redress or accountability. In the absence of legal systems willing and able to respond effectively to allegations of torture and ill-treatment, there are severe limitations on the practical effectiveness of detailed and technical forms of documentation.

References

1. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Istanbul Protocol: Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. New York and Geneva: United Nations; 2004
2. Jensen S, Hapal K, Modvig J. Violence in Bagong Silang. DIGNITY, International Series on Torture and Organized Violence 2, Copenhagen; 2013.
3. Kelly T. This Side of Silence: Torture, Human Rights and the Recognition of Cruelty. Philadelphia; University of Pennsylvania Press; 2012.
4. Rejali D. Torture and Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2009.
5. Fassin D. Compassion and Repression: The Moral Economy of Immigration Policies in France. Cultural Anthropology. 2005 20(3): 362387.
6. International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). Medical Physical Examination of Alleged Torture Victims: A Practical Guide to the Istanbul Protocol – For Medical Doctors. Copenhagen: IRCT; 2009a.
7. Peel M, Lubell N. Medical Investigation and Documentation of Torture. Colchester: Human Rights Centre, University of Essex; 2005. [Cited 24 May 2915] Available from: http://www.medekspert.az/fr/chapter3/resources/nouveau%20 manuel%20d'Essex.pdf.
8. International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). No date. Model Curriculum on the Effective Medical Documentation of Torture and Ill-Treatment - Educational Resources for Health Professional Students. Copenhagen: IRCT. Available from: http://www.irct.org/resources/irct-electronic-library/trainers-materials/ model-medical-curriculum.aspx
9. Redress. A Practical Guide to the Istanbul Protocol for Lawyers in Georgia. London: Redress; 2004.
10. International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). 2009b. Shedding Light on a Dark Practice: Using the Istanbul Protocol to document torture. Copenhagen: IRCT; 2009b. [Cited 24 May 2014] Available from: http://irct. org/Files/Filer/publications/ipip/shedding_light_ on_a_dark_practice.pdf
11. Oficina de Derechos Humanos del Arzobispado de Guatemala. Consultoría para la ratificación del OPCAT en Guatemala. Recopilación de Informes I Y II. Guatemala City; 2005. Oficina de Derechos Humanos del Arzobispado de Guatemala. See also: http://www.odhag.org.gt/.
12. Mandel L, Worm L. 2006. Implementing the Istanbul Protocol. RCT Praxis Paper. [Cited 24 May 2015] Available at: http://www.dignityinstitute.org/media/407343/praxis%20paper%20 no.%203.pdf. Last Accessed 24 May 2015.
13. Jensen S, Kelly T, Andersen M, Christiansen C, Sharma J. Torture and Ill-treatment Underperceived: Human Rights Documentation and the Poor. Human Rights Quarterly, forthcoming.
14. Alston P, Knuckey S. The Transformation of Human Rights Fact Finding. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.
15. Spradley J. The Ethnographic Interview. Long Grove: Waveland; 1979.
16. Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology With Examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2007 January 1: 77-100.
17. Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth. Ethical Guidelines for good research practice 2011 [Cited 24 May 2015] Available from: http://www.theasa.org/ethics. shtml
18. Independent Policing Oversight Authority. Monitoring Report on Operation Sanitization 2014. [Cited 23 January 2016] Available from: http:// www.ipoa.go.ke/ipoa-downloads
19. Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, 29 Days of Terror in the Delta: KNCHR Account Into the Atrocities at Tanza Delta (2012), [Cited 20 January 2016} Available from: http://www. knchr.org/Portals/0/Reports/29_Days_Of_Terror_Delta.pdf
20. Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU). Research Report: A Cry for Justice: Torture and ill-treatment of Hawkers and Small Scale Traders in Nairobi City County. Nairobi: IMLU; 2014. [Cited 2 February 2015] Available from: http:// www.imlu.org/2011-06-30-23-44-4/2015-08-2809-08-23/reports/finish/2-reports/279-tortureand-ill-treatment-of-hawkers-and-small-scaletraders-in-nairobi-city-county/0.html
21. Anderson D, McKnight J. Kenya at War: Al Shabaab and its Enemies in Eastern Africa. African Affairs. 2015 114(1): 1-27.
22. Atlas of Torture: Observing the Situation of Torture Worldwide. Bangladesh: Security services proposed amendments to limit the protection against torture [updated Apr 09, 201; cited 4 Jun 2015;] Available from: http://www.univie.ac.at/ bimtor/news/1765
23. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Service Trust (BLAST). BLAST and others vs. Bangladesh and others: Writ Petition No. 3806 of 1998, High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. [Cited Jun 4 2015] Available from: http://www.blast.org.bd/issues/justice/214-3806of1998. See also: http://www.blast.org.bd/issues/justice/214
24. Islam S. The State of Governance in Bangladesh 2010-11: Policy, Influence, Ownership. Dhaka: Institute of Governance Studies; 2012.
25. Jahan R. Bangladesh Politics: Problems and Issues. Dhaka: University Press Limited; 2005.
26. Moniruzzaman M. Party Politics and Political Violence in Bangladesh: Issues, Manifestation and Consequences. South Asian Survey 2009 16(1): 81–99.
27. Alam, Quamrul, Teicher J. 2012. The State of Governance in Bangladesh: The Capture of State Institutions. Journal of South Asian Studies. 35(4).
28. Andersen M K. 2016. Time-Use, Activism and the Making of Future. Journal of South Asian Studies, 39(2): 415-429.
29. Written statement submitted by ODHIKAR - Coalition for Human Rights, Twenty-seventh session, Agenda item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention, 25 August 2014.
30. Von Einsiedel S, Amlone D, Pradhan S (eds.) Nepal in Transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012
31. Office of the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights (OHCHR), 2012. Nepal Conflict Report: An Analysis of Conflict-Related Violations of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law between February 1996 and 21 November 2006. Geneva: OHCHR; 2012. [Cited 24 May 2015] Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/ NP/OHCHR_Nepal_Conflict_Report2012.pdf
32. Advocacy Forum - Nepal. Nepal: Is the Government Unable to Unwilling to Prevent and Investigate Torture? Kathmandu: Advocacy Forum; 2013. [Cited 2015 24 May] Available from: http://advocacyforum.org/downloads/pdf/publications/torture/26-June-2013-english-version.pdf
33. International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). Kenya national materials. Copenhagen: IRCT; no date. Available from: http:// irct.org/resources/irct-electronic-library/countryspecific-materials/kenya.aspx
34. Advocacy Forum - Nepal. Promising Developments and Persistent Problems. Kathmandu: Advocacy Forum; 2014. [Cited 2015 May 24] Available at: http://advocacyforum.org/downloads/ pdf/publications/torture/promising-development-persistent-problems.pdf

Downloads

Published

2018-09-26

How to Cite

Kelly, T., Jensen, S., Andersen, M. K., Christiansen, C., & Sharma, J. R. (2018). A comparative study of the use of the Istanbul Protocol amongst civil society organizations in low-income countries. Torture Journal, 26(3), 14. https://doi.org/10.7146/torture.v26i3.109501