The Istanbul Protocol: A global stakeholder survey on past experiences, current practices and additional norm setting.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION\nThe Istanbul Protocol (IP) principles and guidelines have served as international norms for the effective investigation and documentation of torture and ill-treatment since 1999. Given the widespread use of the IP and recent calls to update or enhance its norms, we conducted a large-scale study among stakeholders to understand current practices as well as opinions on additional IP norm setting.\n\n\nMETHODS\nBetween February 20, 2017 and April 7, 2017, we conducted an online survey of IP users using a combination of criterion and chain sampling. The survey instrument included the following domains of inquiry: 1) respondent characteristics (demographics, anti-torture work, country conditions, and IP training); 2) IP use, importance and practices, and; 3) opinions on additional IP norm setting.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe survey was distributed to 177 individuals and 250 organizational representatives with response rates of 78% and 47% respectively. The respondents came from a variety of clinical, legal, academic, and advocacy disciplines from around the world. The respondents indicated that they use the IP for a wide range of anti-torture activities: investigation and documentation, advocacy, training and capacity building, policy reform, prevention, and treatment and rehabilitation of torture survivors. The vast majority (94% of individual respondents and 84% of organizations) reported that the IP is important to their anti-torture work. A majority of individual (60%) and organizational (59%) respondents reported that updating or adding clarifications to the IP would help to address the challenges they face and provided specific suggestions. However, 41% of individuals and 21% of organizational respondents also reported concerns that additional IP norm setting could have negative consequences.\n\n\nDISCUSSION\nThe IP provides critical guidance for a wide range of torture prevention, accountability, and redress activities and can be enhanced through the development of additional updates and clarifications to respond to the current needs of torture survivors and stakeholders.