Pau Pérez-Sales

The article presents a systematic literature review on migration, torture and health.

Documenting torture in children and young adults (ChYA) is a challenge. Less than 3% of academic papers on documentation and rehabilitation of torture victims are focused on children and youth. In the Delphi study on research priorities in the sector (Pérez-Sales, Witcombe, & Otero Oyague, 2017), five lines were proposed regarding torture in children, which covered: developmental disruptions related to the torture of relatives; developmental deficits related to infant torture; the effect on caregivers of torture/kidnapping of their children; the impact of torture on identity and worldviews among adolescents; and transgenerational trauma. The latter was considered among the 40 top research priorities. In this editorial, we briefly review: aspects related to the notion of torture as applied to ChYA; specific ethical problems in forensic documentation; and challenges in consistency statements. By doing so, we aim to outline key challenges that researchers and practitioners ought to pursue.

Initially published in 2012 and now reedited, this book constitutes a peculiar contribution to the torture literature on perpetrators. Existing books have already covered: self-justifying perspectives written by perpetrators (i.e. Aussaresses, 2010; Moore-King, 1998; Pardo, 2014; Troccoli, 1996); interviews with perpetrators or analysis from autobiographical texts (i.e. Conroy, 2000; Crelinsten & Schmid, Alex P (Eds.), 1995; Haritos-Fatouros, 2003; Payne, 2008; Pérez-Sales, 2017); and analysis of the interaction from a survivor’s viewpoint (Gil, 1999). There also exists a wealth of social psychology books that attempt to theorize the logic and dynamics of becoming a perpetrator (i.e. Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Browning, 1992; Miller, 2004; Staub, 1999). Caldwell’s book adopts the extreme hypothesis that the soldiers England and Harman, judged for acts of misconduct in Abu Ghraib after the leakage of dozens of terrible pictures, are innocent. The book goes on to defend the nearly untenable thesis that England and Harman must be considered victims themselves. It is thus wholly unsurprising to find out that Caldwell was part of the legal defence team for both soldiers.

Classical perspectives on sexualized torture are being increasingly challenged by contemporary debates informed by emerging claims (Mendez, 2016; Sáez, 2016; Sifris, 2014). Gender-based analysis based on feminist and other theoretical approaches is needed to adequately address these. Arriving at a general framework for the reconceptualization of torture, and progressively widening the analytical scope of gender and torture, are priorities. Gender analyses of torture needs to encompass a broader range of phenomena, from rape and attacks on sexual integrity to any suffering inflicted on human beings that is intricately intertwined with gender (Jakobsen, 2014), including and not limited to discrimination against LGTBI persons,1 genital mutilation, and the restriction of any of the broad range of issues under the frame of reproductive freedom, such as abortion and involuntary sterilization.2 The push for a gender transformative rethinking of conceptual and analytical approaches to torture is accompanied by the need to develop specific tools to detect and assess sexual and gender-based torture (including the necessity for a reconsideration of gender perspectives on the Istanbul Protocol), to incorporate a feminist perspective in the rehabilitation of victims. This requires specific treatment approaches as well as holistic survivor-centered rehabilitation models that include access to high quality and comprehensive services. Services that support stigma reduction are particularly important. Our own desk review on all papers published in Torture Journal since 2006 until 2018 showed a clear gender analysis gap: only 32% of papers included the word ‘gender’ and 38% the word ‘female’ in any part of the text. In 84% of the cases, these mentions simply indexed the presentation of data disaggregated by sex. Only 4% of all the papers published in the Journal attempted a gender analysis. To help address this gap, the Journal circulated a call for papers on gender and torture that aligned with research priorities identified in our Delphi study (Pérez-Sales, Witcombe, & Otero, 2017). The response to this call has been encouraging. This issue features a collection of texts that highlight important aspects of sexualized and gender-based torture and provide reflections that contribute to framing the theoretical debate on the nature and scope of gender-based and genderized forms of torture. The Journal believes that even more research and reflection is necessary to adequately clarify and raise the terms of this debate and additional texts relevant to the topic are planned to appear in forthcoming issues. This current issue draws out key concepts that are important to making an impact, both on the debate and in practice.

The events in October 2017 in Catalonia exemplify the difficulty of establishing what ‘excessive use of force’ means. Images of violent repression of defenceless people of all ages waiting to vote accompany the Spanish government’s spokeswoman reiterating in the media that what the police force is doing is “proportional” and therefore allegedly acceptable. Can scientific research add to the debate on what is “proportional” and when an intervention in non-custodial settings enters into what is banned under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (‘CAT’)? This is not a minor issue. According to international databases, from an epidemiological point of view, torture happens mainly in prisons and police stations linked to marginalised populations. Ill-treatment and torture against political dissidents and protesters is less frequent, but widespread, affecting around 70% of countries across the world (Conrad, Haglund, & Moore, 2013).

Background: Research is a key element in prevention and in ensuring that survivors of torture have access to appropriate and effective rehabilitation, but it is often neglected as more pressing issues frequently come first. Click on PDF to see full

Interrogation is an essential component of a comprehensive view of torture and deserves special reflection. In interrogational torture, physical and psychological techniques serve the purpose of creating the physical, cognitive and emotional exhaustion in the detainee considered necessary for the successful questioning of a potential source of information. Interrogation can, at the same time, be conducted in a way that deepens the effect of torturing methods and environments when the interview is carried out in a way that fosters cognitive and emotional exhaustion, leading to breakdown (Pérez-Sales, 2016). Interrogations follow procedures and regulations, but in most countries there is a lack of transparency and information. Academia has only recently begun to do systematic research on interrogation and interviewing techniques (Walsh, Oxburgh, Redlich, & Myklebust, 2017; Intelligence Science Board, 2006; Meissner, 2012; Rassin & Israëls, 2014) to prove effects beyond personal opinions.

Psychotherapy for torture survivors - Suggested pathways for research

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.