Title: A Comparative Analysis of the Documentation of Torture and Ill-Treatment in Low-Income Countries
Funder: Economic and Social Research Council

Abstract: In many Low Income Countries (LICs), violence is endemic. Among urban populations, the poor are the most vulnerable to torture and ill-treatment. They are also the least able to access forms of accountability. As such, the documentation of torture and ill-treatment can play a key role in improving access to justice and human security. However, recent research demonstrates that routine torture and ill-treatment is difficult to document. In addition, the instruments used for the documentation of torture and ill-treatment assume a level of institutional capacity that is often not available in LICs. They are relatively weak at identifying forms of torture and ill-treatment that are not already reported to NGOs or public bodies. There is therefore a need to develop techniques that can be effectively used to document torture and ill-treatment in situations with limited clinical and legal resources. This project has three key objectives. A. A comparative analysis of the challenges faced by those attempting to document torture and ill-treatment in LICs. B. The development of a survey technique for the documentation of torture and ill-treatment. C. The development of policy recommendations for the most effective methods for the documentation of torture and ill-treatment in LICs. The broader objectives of the research is to contribute to wider debates about the most effective ways to document violence and to help marginalised populations enforce accountability. Structural inequalities and poverty have a key impact on both the vulnerability of marginal populations to state violence, and their ability to seek redress. Case studies will be drawn from three countries: Kenya, Bangladesh and Nepal. All three countries have histories of state led violence and urban poverty. This research project will ask the following empirical questions: 1. How is the prevalence and form of torture and ill-treatment distributed across poor urban populations? 2. What factors determine the relative likelihood that survivors of torture and ill-treatment among the urban poor report their experience and to whom? 3. Towards which particular ends are attempts made to document torture and ill-treatment? 4. What do those who attempt to document torture and ill-treatment in LICs perceive as the benefits and limitations of the current instruments that are available? 5. What forms of torture and ill-treatment, and amongst which populations, do currently available instruments fail to adequately document? The findings from these five questions will be brought together in order to answer an overarching policy question: 6. What are the implications of the research findings for the development of techniques and instruments for the documentation of torture in LICs with relatively low clinical and legal capacity? The research will be divided into two broad areas. A mixed method victimisation survey, and a qualitative analysis of the issues faced by those who attempt to document torture and ill-treatment in specific research sites. The mixed method survey will serve two purposes. First, it will provide a comparative base line with for the analysis of the perceived limitations of current instruments for the documentation of torture and ill-treatment (Q1). Second, it will allow the development a survey based instrument for the documentation of torture and ill-treatment that works on general, rather than individual scale. Such a survey method can be used as both an advocacy tool and to enable the better targeting of policy interventions. The qualitative analysis of the use, potential and limitations of current instruments (questions 2 to 4) will allow the creation of concrete policy recommendations for the most effective ways to document torture and ill-treatment in situations of limited institutional capacity (questions 5 and 6).


Research activity codes: 8.4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGIES (HEALTH SERVICES)
Health categories: DISPUTED AETIOLOGY AND OTHER