DIFFICULTIES IN CONDUCTING A FORENSIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL-PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION IN TORTURE USING THE ISTANBUL PROTOCOL PRINCIPLES

Abstract

According to the official data of the General prosecutor’s Office of the Kyrgyz Republic, in
402 (92,4%) out 435 cases on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment the prosecutors refused to institute criminal proceedings. In 9 months of 2017 the criminal proceedings were not instigated in 287 (88,3%) out of 325 cases. The analysis of the forensic and psychiatric examinations on torture and cruel treatment cases showed the reasons why the investigating bodies rejected complaints. They are as
follows:
1. The procedures of forensic examination launch can be postponed and is depend on the will of the investigator
2. Overburden of experts; 3. Absence of persons who shall conduct the examination;
4. The absence of the full package of medical documentation (when a person was at hospital or underwent a medical treatment resulted from a physical harm (crime)), and it has to take additional time to collect the data and consequently it leads to delay of the forensic examination;
5. The lack of full information and necessary investigation materials related to the circumstances of the wound and physical harm appearance which also influence the time of forensic examination;
6. The use of «sample questions» without taking into consideration the specificity of the examination and the trauma which will further raise many additional questions.
7. Not-on-time presentation of the investigator’s decision on forensic examination conductance to the subject of the criminal process (suspect (accused person), his/her defender, crime victim, his/her representative). In case of the repetition of the forensic examination, It may lead to:
□ Forensic experts and doctors fill up the Forensic Expert’s Conclusion Forms 003-4U,
003-5U and the Medical Check Form 003-3U of low quality;
□ Not full and incorrect description of the morphology of the physical damages by doctors,
and this cannot allow to assess their heaviness and the prescription of injury;
□ Not inclusion or delayed inclusion of specialized experts to the examination process;
□ Contradictive conclusions of forensic and psychiatric examinations.