header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Proving torture

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
20 October 2015 / Rosalyn Akar Grams
Issue: 7673 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Rosalyn Akar Grams reflects on the ever-rising bar for medical evidence in asylum claims

The 1999 Istanbul Protocol (IP) was the culmination of three years work involving over 75 forensic doctors, psychologists, human rights monitors and lawyers, representing 40 organisations (including Freedom from Torture, then The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture) and institutions from 15 states.

The IP is a rigorous international guideline, endorsed by the UN, for the effective investigation and documentation of torture. It underpins the clinical objectivity and probative value of medical evidence. Its applicability is broad including international justice and civil claims for survivors of torture.

Domestic context

However, in the domestic context its use has been focused on asylum claims where it is applied by decision-makers when assessing medical evidence. Its valuable role has been confirmed in a number of cases (SA Somalia v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1302, [2006] All ER (D) 103 (Oct), JL (medical reports—credibility) China [2013] UKUT 00145 (IAC)).

The collection of forensic evidence of torture and the production of medico-legal

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll