°ÄÃÅÀúÊ·¿ª½±¼Ç¼

I think there are two main findings. The first points to what is most effective in preventing torture - that safeguards are in place when somebody is first brought into custody. This means, first of all: the place of detention is an official one, where people are lawfully detained and their detention is recorded. Their family and friends are notified. They have a right of access to a lawyer promptly, they are under medical supervision from the outset, and they are presented before a judge within a reasonable time. There are also various guarantees surrounding the process of interviewing or interrogation, including electronic recording. Some of these safeguards are more important than others, but taken together these were found to be the most effective in preventing torture. 

Finding number two is that what matters is not law but practice. For all the preventive measures, we looked both at the legal provision and the actual practice, and in every instance we found that legal provision on its own did not make a difference. Law did not have a preventive effect without practice. Now, is legal provision necessary as a pre-condition for practice? In most instances it is, yes. But not in all instances, actually. We did have some cases where practice was more advanced than law. However, the bottom line is that what matters is actual practice. 

What are the implications for future research and practice?

Lots of things potentially. We would really like to see more studies along the same lines. Our research was very in-depth and reasonably broad, looking at 16 countries with very different experiences in torture prevention over a 30-year period. But, of course, we would like people to take this research further. 

Also, some other questions have been raised. Our study focused largely, though not exclusively, on the criminal justice system. We know that most people who are at risk of torture are within the criminal justice system. However, I think there are lots of questions about what would be the most effective protection for people in other types of systems. The one we ourselves are particularly interested in is immigration detention. But there are also other types of places where people's liberties are restricted, including closed hospitals and care homes. And because these are different types of systems, we might find different answers to the question: 'What works?'

There are lots of other findings our research presented and it would be interesting to dig further to explore the mechanisms at work. In particular, how do we bridge the gap between law and practice? If you pass a law how do you ensure it has a practical effect? One of the clear findings of our study is that training is important - that is, training of everyone involved, including investigators, custodial officers, the staff of national preventive mechanisms, judges and so on. So there is a whole potential research agenda on training. 

But there are also other interesting observations on this gap between law and practice. Our study was not only quantitative but also qualitative. This allowed us to observe differences between a centralised system like Turkey, where changes in law tended to be reflected very rapidly in the practice on the ground, and a federal system like Argentina, where changes at the central level were probably never reflected at the local level. So, 'centralised vs federal systems' is one obvious explanation for the law-practice gap but, of course, there are lots of other factors that come into play, for example about the level of discipline of police forces. So, these are all areas that deserve further exploration.

This interview was conducted by Alex Lee, MSc Global Governance and Ethics. It was recorded at the inaugural meeting of the UK Network on the Prohibition of Torture on 2 November 2017.