header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 October 2015 / Rosalyn Akar Grams
Issue: 7673 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Proving torture

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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
Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll