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
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll