Istanbul Protocol, the UN Guidelines for Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture : The Role of Psychiatrists = بروتوكول إسطنبول، المبادئ التوجيهية للأمم المتحدة للتحقيق الفعال وتوثيق التعذيب : دور الأطباء النفسيين

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-88
Author(s):  
Abou-Saleh , Mohammed T.
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-228
Author(s):  
Marcelle Reneman

National authorities are often reluctant to arrange for a forensic medical examination or to grant important weight to forensic medical reports in asylum cases. They do not (fully) accept that a forensic medical report may change their initial assessment of the credibility of the applicant’s asylum account. They may argue that a physician cannot establish the context (date, location, perpetrator) in which the alleged ill-treatment has taken place or the cause of a specific scar or medical problem of the applicant. Moreover, they may contend that the physician concerned did not have the expertise to write a forensic medical report. This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Committee against Torture (CAT) have included forensic medical reports in their assessment of asylum cases and how they have dealt with the ‘context’, ‘causality’ and ‘expertise’ argument. It shows that these bodies do not accept that national authorities refrain from arranging a forensic medical examination or attach no or limited weight to a forensic medical report submitted by the applicant, just because the applicant has made inconsistent, incoherent or vague statements. They also do not accept general references to the ‘context’, ‘causality’ and ‘expertise’ argument. However, they have accepted these arguments in some individual cases, often without clear reasoning. The article concludes that the ECtHR and CAT could provide more guidance to national authorities concerning the role of forensic medical reports in asylum cases by explicitly weighing the seriousness of the credibility issues against the forensic medical report and by paying attention to the requirements for forensic medical reports laid down in the Istanbul Protocol.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 1559-1565
Author(s):  
Svetlozar Spasov

The promotion and protection of human rights is one of the fundamental priorities of the United Nations, the European Union and every rule of law and democracy governed country. One of the most serious violations of human rights and human dignity is torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. For decades, the international community and the European Union take a number of actions aimed at preventing and limiting this type of negative manifestations. The main ones are the adoption of international universal and regional human rights instruments and the creation of specialized jurisdictions to monitor compliance with the established legal framework. Judicial experts and their expertise play an extremely important role in the proper and effective investigation of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The serious importance that the international community attaches to these medical professionals and their expertise is reaffirmed in the 2004 Istanbul Protocol drawn up by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This act establishes internationally recognized standards and principles for the effective investigation and documentation of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, some of which relate specifically to the role of judicial experts and their medical expertise. These include: the principles of impartiality and independence of medical experts in identifying such types of offenses, the compliance of their activities with the highest ethical standards, the principle of obtaining informed consent from the person alleged to be a victim of torture before doing any research. The Istanbul Protocol also introduced standards for order in which any medical examination of victims of torture or other ill-treatment should take place, as well as on the form and structure of medical expertise.The particular emphasis placed on the role of judicial experts by the international community is completely understandable, as it is these medical professionals who make the physical and / or psychological evaluation of the victim, which is objectified in the medical expertise, medical psychiatric expertise, or medical psychological expertise. On the basis of these expertises, the investigating authorities have the opportunity to prove the causal link between the victim's bodily harm and the psycho-traumas with the alleged torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Medical expertise is a method of proof not only in the course of the investigation, but also in the judicial process, as the specialized knowledge of forensic experts assist the court in establishing the objective truth, as well as the victims and their lawyers in the exercise of their rights of defense.


JAMA ◽  
1966 ◽  
Vol 195 (12) ◽  
pp. 1005-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. Fernbach
Keyword(s):  

JAMA ◽  
1966 ◽  
Vol 195 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. E. Van Metre

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winnifred R. Louis ◽  
Craig McGarty ◽  
Emma F. Thomas ◽  
Catherine E. Amiot ◽  
Fathali M. Moghaddam

AbstractWhitehouse adapts insights from evolutionary anthropology to interpret extreme self-sacrifice through the concept of identity fusion. The model neglects the role of normative systems in shaping behaviors, especially in relation to violent extremism. In peaceful groups, increasing fusion will actually decrease extremism. Groups collectively appraise threats and opportunities, actively debate action options, and rarely choose violence toward self or others.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.


2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefen Beeler-Duden ◽  
Meltem Yucel ◽  
Amrisha Vaish

Abstract Tomasello offers a compelling account of the emergence of humans’ sense of obligation. We suggest that more needs to be said about the role of affect in the creation of obligations. We also argue that positive emotions such as gratitude evolved to encourage individuals to fulfill cooperative obligations without the negative quality that Tomasello proposes is inherent in obligations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Whiten

Abstract The authors do the field of cultural evolution a service by exploring the role of non-social cognition in human cumulative technological culture, truly neglected in comparison with socio-cognitive abilities frequently assumed to be the primary drivers. Some specifics of their delineation of the critical factors are problematic, however. I highlight recent chimpanzee–human comparative findings that should help refine such analyses.


2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Parr

Abstract This commentary focuses upon the relationship between two themes in the target article: the ways in which a Markov blanket may be defined and the role of precision and salience in mediating the interactions between what is internal and external to a system. These each rest upon the different perspectives we might take while “choosing” a Markov blanket.


2000 ◽  
Vol 179 ◽  
pp. 387-388
Author(s):  
Gaetano Belvedere ◽  
V. V. Pipin ◽  
G. Rüdiger

Extended AbstractRecent numerical simulations lead to the result that turbulence is much more magnetically driven than believed. In particular the role ofmagnetic buoyancyappears quite important for the generation ofα-effect and angular momentum transport (Brandenburg & Schmitt 1998). We present results obtained for a turbulence field driven by a (given) Lorentz force in a non-stratified but rotating convection zone. The main result confirms the numerical findings of Brandenburg & Schmitt that in the northern hemisphere theα-effect and the kinetic helicityℋkin= 〈u′ · rotu′〉 are positive (and negative in the northern hemisphere), this being just opposite to what occurs for the current helicityℋcurr= 〈j′ ·B′〉, which is negative in the northern hemisphere (and positive in the southern hemisphere). There has been an increasing number of papers presenting observations of current helicity at the solar surface, all showing that it isnegativein the northern hemisphere and positive in the southern hemisphere (see Rüdigeret al. 2000, also for a review).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document