Debility, dependency and dread: On the conceptual and evidentiary dimensions of psychological torture

Abstract

Background: Psychological torture is deployed to break and obliterate human resistance, spirit and personality, but it is rarely afforded sufficient attention. Deficiencies in conceptualising, documenting and adjudicating non-physical torture mean that it is frequently left undetected and uncontested by the public, media and the courts, bolstering impunity for its perpetrators. A review of the current literature to map conceptual and evidentiary shortcomings from an inter-disciplinary perspective is therefore warranted.
 Method: The relevant texts were identified through a systematic full-text search of databases, namely HeinOnline, HUDOC, UNODS and DIGNITY´s Documentation Centre, with the keywords `psychological torture´, `mental pain and suffering´, `severity´, `humiliation´, `interrogation techniques´, and `torture methods´. The identified texts, limited to English-language journal articles, NGO reports, court-cases and UN documents from 1950 to date, were then selected for relevance pertaining to conceptual, evidentiary, technological and ethical critique provided therein.
 Results/Discussion: Evidential invisibility, subjectivity of the suffering, and perceived technological control are the primary ways in which psychological torture methods are designed, and how they manage to evade prosecution and consequently be perpetuated. Cognisant of the need for further research, pertinent questions highlighting the need to develop approaches, sharpen standards and use a medical/psychological/legal interdisciplinary approach are suggested.

Torturing environments and multiple injuries in Mexican migration detention

“…A validation study determined categorical omega values ωc as indicators for internal consistency ranging from 0.44 to 0.72 (Pérez-Sales et al, 2021 ). Based on the standard of reference in the assessment of torture allegations (which is the Istanbul Protocol, United Nations, 2004 ), expert assessments confirmed the TES’ convergent validity (Cakal, 2018 ; Jaranson, 2017 ), which suggests the robustness of the scale.…”

“Arbitrariness” as an Indication of Harm

“…Often, judges simply categorise acts as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment in lieu of torture, or where the two categories appear as part of the same prohibition, the decision-makers refrain from distinguishing between the two categories. This is particularly the case for acts constituting mainly psychological forms of violence, 145 such as solitary confinement and prolonged incommunicado detention, 146 poor prison conditions and humiliation of prisoners, 147 including when the illtreatment stems from detention in refugee and migrant detention facilities. 148 Consequently, the easier argument to make is that arbitrary detention that itself causes severe pain or suffering would amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment opposed to torture).…”

Perception, practice and proximity. Qualifying threats as psychological torture in international law.

“…As with all psychological methods of torture, threats are difficult to identify due to overarching conceptual and evidentiary complexities (see Cakal, 2018;2019) due to not leaving physical marks, being trivialised by state authorities, and being combined with other methods (see, e.g., CAT, Martínez v. Mexico; CAT, S.S.B v. Denmark). Here, the considerations of legality, vulnerability and totality are employed to assist in contextually situating the use of threats, explicating and contesting what is obfuscated as "standard operating procedure" and underappreciated as "mild" force.…”