Exploratory study on the quality of forensic assessments using the Istanbul Protocol in a virtual versus face-to-face environment

Abstract

Introduction. With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic, most torture victim care centres had to adapt their forensic assessment methods and move to online methodologies. Therefore, it is essential to assess the advan-tages and disadvantages of this type of inter-vention, which seems to be here to stay. Method. Structured administered surveys were conducted with professionals (n=21) and with torture survivors (SoT) (n=21) from a sample of 21 Istanbul Protocols (IP). Compar-ing face-to-face (n=10) and remote (n=11) interviews in relation to the evaluation process, satisfaction, difficulties encountered, and compliance with therapeutic aspects. All assessments were primarily psychological. Three remote and four face-to-face interviews in-cluded a medical assessment. Results. No significant problems were found in relation to the ethical requirements of the IP. Satisfaction with the process was pos-itive in both modalities. Regarding the online method, there were frequent connection problems and a lack of adequate material resources in the remote assessments, requiring a significantly higher number of interviews in most cases. Survivors were more satisfied than eval-uators. Overall, the forensic experts described problems in complex cases with an understanding of the person’s emotional response, they established a bond, and they undertook psychotherapeutic interventions in the event of an emotional crisis during the assessment. In the face-to-face protocols, logistical and travel problems were frequent, which meant that forensic work times had to be adapted. Discussion. The two methodologies are not directly comparable but have specific issues to be studied and addressed. More invest-ment and adaptation in remote methodology is needed, especially given the poor economic situation of many SoT. Remote assessment is a valid alternative to face-to-face interviews in specific cases. However, there are very relevant human and therapeutic aspects that indicate that, whenever possible, face-to-face assessment should be preferred.