Role of forensic and medical sciences in the investigation prevention torture and other ill-treatment 2014, para. 53
Paragraph- Paragraph text
- Prosecutors and courts should not be limited to evaluating reports from officially accredited experts, irrespective of their institutional affiliation. Criminal procedure must ensure that reports of a non-government health professional may be accepted as evidence of torture or other ill-treatment in Court. In addition, non-State health experts should be encouraged to review State examinations and to conduct their own independent assessments; these assessments should be given the weight they deserve on their merits. Courts should neither rule out non-State experts nor award State expert testimony more weight based solely on their "official" status. Regarding required expertise, it must be determined on its merits. In that regard, independence and objectivity are a primary concern. The State will usually have more resources and be in a privileged position to examine victims. Those facts must be considered alongside the degree of independence and impartiality such experts enjoy, as well as the obstacles that non-State experts might face in gaining access to and procuring evidence. The presumption must be that the State has to account for its own action or inaction and its inability to protect the rights of persons in custody. It is the State's obligation to rebut allegations, and to show that it has conducted truly effective investigations.
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Paragraph type
- Other
- Paragraph number
- 53
sorted by
Date added
78 relationships, 78 entities