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
CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Motor finance faces £11bn reckoning
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll