Training Manual on Human Rights Monitoring - Chapter VIII: Interviewing
A. Introduction
B. Identifying individuals for interviewing
1. Who will conduct the interview
2. Interpreters
E. Interview
F. Concluding the interview and keeping in contact
1. Verification and cross-checking of information and documentation
I. Interviewing special "groups" or individuals with particular characteristics
2. Women
3. Refugees and other displaced persons
4. Children
8. Government officials and suspected perpetrators
1. Interviewing is the most common method of collecting information about alleged human rights abuses. In addition, oral evidence is often necessary to supplement written information. In this section, various aspects of interviewing will be discussed. The basic techniques of preparing for, initiating, and conducting the interview will be examined in this chapter. Topics include using interpreters, verifying information, and interviewing individuals with particular characteristics. It is important to keep in mind that interviews occur in many different contexts -- office, prison, in the field, and on the road. The interview process should be tailored to fit each situation. Also, HROs should think strategically about what information they need to collect. Where can they get it? Who would know? What are the witnesses' interests in coming forward and telling their stories?
B. Identifying individuals for interviewing
1. Identification of witnesses
2. Often individuals identify themselves by coming forward in search of protection or recourse for past violations of human rights. Yet it is common for witnesses and victims to feel that it is useless or dangerous for them to identify themselves. For particular types of violations, for example sexual abuses or other forms of violence against women, the victims' reluctance to report violations may be even greater. It may be necessary, therefore, for HROs to be pro-active rather than passive in determining whom to interview. It is indispensable that fact-finders develop good relations with human rights and other organizations working in their area. This task implies active efforts to contact the organizations, to arrange periodic meetings, etc. Local human rights and other organizations can put HROs in touch with victims and witnesses of human rights violations. Clinics and treatment centres may also serve as a starting point. In addition, lawyers and journalists may be able to identify potential interviewees.
3. As indicated above, HROs must be available and ready to leave their office and go to where they can receive information from a person who considers himself or herself to be a victim of a violation. HROs must regularly visit prisons, hospitals, morgues, and areas where the population is most at risk (such as slums, working class districts, and rural communities). When moving into remote rural areas, HROs should choose between several approaches. One approach is to establish and follow a schedule of visits to allow witnesses to contact them. Another possibility is to visit irregularly and arrive unexpectedly. A third approach is to schedule occasional visits through a trusted third party, such as a member of the clergy.
4. HROs should never pay for testimony, but should consider providing for the travel costs of witnesses who have to travel long distances. One reason not to pay for an interview is concern that the interviewee will tell the story that s/he thinks the HRO wants to hear.
5. Another consideration for interviewing witnesses -- especially interviewing conducted by human rights field operations -- is the need to protect witnesses. The subject of protecting witnesses needs to be considered in the context of all the measures which should be taken -- from the first stages of arranging for the interview through post-interview communications.
6. While there can be no complete assurance that witnesses will be protected after they have been interviewed, one partial solution to the problem of retaliation against witnesses, used chiefly by intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), is an agreement by the Government not to undertake retaliatory measures. For example, Article 58 of the Regulations of the Inter-American Commission requires the government to bind itself not to take reprisals against witnesses as a condition of the mission. The "Agreement on the establishment of an Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia" states at art. 31 that "[t]he Government undertakes [...] to ensure that no person who has ahd contact with the Office is subjected to abuse, threats, reprisals or legal proceedings on those grounds alone."
7. In the absence of a protection agreement or in any case, several measures may be taken to protect the witness:
(a) Interviews should be undertaken in a context in which the field operation would not focus unnecessary attention on the witness. HROs should try to interview a significant number of people in a community so as to avoid focusing attention on a few individuals.
(b) The interviews should occur in a place where surveillance is minimal. Governmental surveillance is less likely to be a problem if HROs are mobile and travel around the countryside.
(c) The interviewer should never refer explicitly to statements made by one witness when interviewing another witness. Such an error may endanger the first witness and will make the second witness uncomfortable about the confidentiality of the information which is provided. Indeed, it is best to avoid revealing the identity of other people who have provided information. Contacts should be very carefully protected and their identity should not be divulged except under complete assurances of safety.
(d) The interviewer should inquire as to whether the witness is in danger, and what security measures the witness believes should be taken.
(e) Briefly at the beginning of the interview and more thoroughly at the end, the interviewer should inquire as to what precautions may be taken to give some protection to the witness after the interview. Some witnesses may want to have a card indicating that they have been interviewed so that they can show that card to authorities indicating that the UN will care if any harm befalls them. Others will view such cards as dangerous to possess because they may attract the attention of authorities. These witnesses may, instead, want to develop some method of keeping in contact. Some interviewees may prefer to remain anonymous. In any case, it should be made clear that the HRO cannot assure the safety of the witness.
8. In order to protect the persons interviewed, it is crucial to keep all records in a secure location at all times. Files might as an extra precaution be identified by number and not by the name of the individual. Lists identifying the interviewees would then be kept separate from the substantive files and records of interviews. When additional information becomes available, the HRO should mark it with the number of the file, and not the name of the victim. Duplicate copies of all records should be made and kept in a secure location.
9. In preparing for the interview, the HRO should consider who to interview, how to protect them, who should conduct the interview, in what language will the interview be conducted, who will translate into and from local languages, where the interview should be done, how the interview should be recorded, what the interviewer needs to know before the interview, and how the interview should be initiated.
10. Because of a reticence to discuss traumatic experiences with others present, it is the practice of most organizations to interview witnesses and victims individually. The UN Draft Model Rules, for example, exclude witnesses from the hearing room while others are testifying if the testifying witness so requests. Amnesty International also follows this pattern. It is worth noting, however, that in a prison context, the ICRC often interviews several people together in one prison cell. This approach gives the interviewer a general view of what people in the group are willing to tell before s/he decides whom to interview individually.
1. Who will conduct the interview
11. In general, it is best to have two persons do the interview. One person can maintain eye contact and ask questions. The other interviewer can discreetly take notes and may identify missed questions. It may, however, be practically impossible to have two interviewers present for all or even most interviews. If there is only one interviewer, s/he should take limited notes and then prepare more complete notes after the session. Also, if an interpreter is necessary, three individuals may be too large a group of listeners. In general, people are willing to be more candid when there are fewer people present. Witnesses may be reluctant to speak in front of a panel of listeners.
12. The UN human rights field operation should determine which if any members of the UN operation speak the relevant local languages. Many of the people who are suffering speak only a local language; UN HROs should learn the local language, if at all possible.
13. Cultural differences between interviewer and interviewee can cause communication problems. These cross-cultural differences include attitudes about the meaning of the traumatic experience, gender and status roles, and appropriate topics of conversation. Even culturally specific ideas about physical interaction (eye contact, personal space) can lead to misunderstandings. It is crucial that the interviewer be sensitive to these cultural differences, be patient with the interviewee, and attempt to learn more about the interviewee's culture. (1)
14. Another cultural difference may be the extent to which politics is a factor in the life of the interviewee. The interviewee may be extremely committed to a particular political view or party, and may describe in detail their political activities. The interviewer should respectfully listen and record this testimony, even though s/he may not agree with the views expressed.
15. It is a much better practice for HROs to speak the language spoken by the people of the country or area in which they work. If HROs must use interpreters, they will not be able to get as full an understanding of the information they receive. Also, many people will be more reluctant to speak with the HROs through an interpreter -- particularly if the interpreter is from the country in which the operation is established. If interpreters are required, they must be vetted as to their background to assure that the work of the UN human rights field operation is not infiltrated by informers from the Government or opposition groups. Care should also be taken to make sure that interpreters are not intimidating to the interviewees. For example, former members of the military or individuals of the same ethnicity as the persecutors should be avoided. In addition, female interpreters may be less threatening than males in the interview context. Also, HROs should be sure that the interpreter speaks the same local variation or dialect as the interviewee.
16. Guidelines should be developed regarding the use of interpreters. If an interpreter is used for an interview, the interviewer should explain the ground rules to the interpreter in private, before the interview begins. The interpreter should be asked to relay questions exactly, word for word to the extent possible. If the questions are unclear or if the witness does not understand them, the interviewer should ask the interpreter to let the interviewer know, so that questions can be rephrased. The interviewer should speak in concise sentences, which are easy to understand and translate. The interpreter should relay questions or statements, one at a time so as to assure that the witness understands them. The interviewer should repeat questions several times, if needed, until comprehension is achieved. The interviewer should look at and speak directly to the witness, rather than to the interpreter.
17. Like all other employees of the UN, interpreters need to be protected. It might be helpful to recruit interpreters from areas outside of the place where they are asked to work. The reliability of interpreters and drivers is very important to the credibility of the work of the officers and the UN.
18. When working with interpreters, it is important to keep in mind the potential for interpreters to learn too much. In the worst case scenario, interpreters may become or be pressured into becoming informants for the persecutors; at the very least, interpreters may become so familiar with certain facts or country conditions that they translate carelessly, incompletely or inaccurately. One possible solution to this problem, used by the European Community Monitors in the former Yugoslavia, is the use of university students as interpreters for only two weeks at a time. Other interpreters are then rotated in as replacements.
19. The interview should be conducted in a location which will present the least risk of eavesdropping and of retaliation against the witness. The greatest risk arises in places such as hotels where interviews may be overheard and where there is a considerable likelihood of surveillance. The selected interview location should raise the least suspicion among persons who see the participants enter or see them talking. Similarly, the location should establish the proper atmosphere for the interview, so that frank discussion can occur without undue interruptions. As with so many other issues, the interviewers should consult their contacts to get advice as to the best locations for interviews.
20. Tape-recording in most circumstances presents grave security concerns and should not be pursued. In some countries, however, where security conditions permit, the interviewer should consider the use of a tape recorder. A tape recorder can only be used with the express consent of the interviewee. They can therefore only be used where the witness develops a considerable degree of trust in the interviewer. Tape recorders are particularly useful where there is only one interviewer and thus note taking is very difficult. Also, tape recorders are helpful where translation/interpretation is needed. The only way to verify the interpretation may be to record the interview, so that it can be considered at a later moment. The tape recorder should not be introduced until after the interviewer has established his/her credibility and reassured the witness about the objectives of the interview and the confidentiality of the information. The witness should be asked whether s/he would permit tape recording, so as to assist the interviewer in recalling the information. There should never be a hidden tape recorder. A tape should never contain the name of the individual who is interviewed. The identity of the witness should be recorded in another place and in a coded manner so that no visible connection can be made between the taped interview and the name of the individual. After the tape has been made, the tape should be hidden, so that it cannot be confiscated or be related easily to the witness.
21. Cameras are even more problematic. There is a considerable risk of retaliation against individuals as a result of photographs. Some witnesses may want their wounds from torture to be photographed. Even such a photograph should not indicate the identity (for example, by showing the face) of the witness. If permission is obtained to take a photo, the witness should be asked about publishing or otherwise disseminating the photo. A very visible individual who is at great risk of death may want to be photographed as a means of self-protection. Nonetheless, most witnesses will probably not want to be photographed.
22. Videorecording is more dangerous for interviews, because they will inhibit obtaining information and will place the witness at considerable risk, if found and confiscated. Videorecording may be somewhat more useful in recording demonstrations or similar public events, but creates security risks. It is important to keep in mind that in some cases the video camera may, in fact, precipitate an event or demonstration. The HRO should take care not to endanger people or distort events by videorecording.
23. The interviewer should prepare for the interview by learning as much as possible about the witness and the relevant circumstances. If a dossier has already been prepared, the interviewer should read the dossier and other background material. The interviewer should also become familiar with terms and acronyms relevant to the situation.
24. The interviewer should prepare for interviews (particularly important ones) by setting out an outline of the interview (including a list of the topics to be covered in the order in which they should be addressed). The interviewer might even write out key questions. Some of the key questions are suggested below in regard to the information necessary to sustain a complaint. Preparing the list of queries helps the interviewer develop a strategy for the interview. The interviewer should commit the questions to memory or should avoid relying too heavily on the list of topics. Eye contact and establishing rapport are more important than adhering to a particular order of questions. The list of topics might be used as a memory refresher at the end of the interview to be sure that the major questions have been asked. The HRO should be careful to avoid allowing the list of questions to become an artificial barrier to communication with the witness.
25. Prior to the interview, the interviewer should have already met with the interpreter and discussed the ground rules for the interview. At the beginning of the interview, the interviewer should greet the individual in a friendly way (smile, shake hands, etc. according to local customs). Before asking any questions in the interview, the interviewer should introduce him/herself and the interpreter, explain the mandate of the UN human rights field operation, establish the purpose of the interview, discuss the ground rules for the interview, talk about how the witness may be protected after the interview, and anticipate the use which will be made of the information. The HRO should stress that it is crucial to obtain as many details as possible in order to establish the facts, for example, that there has been a human rights violation.
26. The interviewer should project an attitude of professionalism, sincerity, and sensitivity. The interviewer must also explain to the interviewee the different steps the information will go through, and the uses that will be made of it.
27. In order to establish an initial rapport with the individual to be interviewed, the interviewer might wish to offer water, coffee, soda, or other refreshment. (It is often useful to have a supply of water and tissues available during the interview.) The interviewer should speak directly to the witness and try to maintain eye contact, even if an interpreter is being used.
28. The interviewer should explain their mandate. One problem about explaining the mandate in any detail is that the witness may tailor their story to fit or even mimic the violations mentioned by the introduction of the mandate. The interviewer should explain that the UN human rights field operation is entirely separate from the Government. Unless unavoidable, HROs should generally not travel in Government vehicles or accept military escorts. The UN operation may need to monitor military activities, but the HROs should keep their distance. As with many other aspects of this manual, HROs should seek policy guidance from the leadership of the human rights operation on such questions.
29. Similarly, the interviewer should assure the witness that information will be kept in confidence and explain how the confidential nature of the information will be preserved. (Interviews with Government officials, however, are generally not confidential.) Nongovernmental witnesses need to be reassured about the objectives of the interview and why the witness should take the risk of providing information. The witness should be aware that notes are being taken of the interview, but the notes will be kept confidential. The witness should be able to give permission as to the use of the material, whether names and details will be cited, etc. The witness should also be reassured about how the notes of the interview will be protected. The witness should be encouraged to provide as much detail as possible. The witness will want to know how the information will be used and the interviewer should ask the witness what the witness thinks ought to be done. The witness should be asked about how the UN human rights field operation can keep in touch after the interview in order to provide some assurance that the witness will not be harmed. At the end of the interview the discussion should return to these issues of how the information will be used, what needs to be done, and how to protect the witness.
30. During the interview, the HRO should maintain rapport with the interviewee, and develop a climate of acceptance and trust. Basic to the development of this climate, the interviewer must avoid the appearance of judging the individual, disapproving of his or her conduct, or disbelieving the information provided. In addition, the interviewer must always follow through on his or her promises. The interviewer should exhibit an interest in the person as an individual, someone worthy of respect and concern, and requiring attentiveness to their perspective and motivations. The interviewer should treat the individual as having important information and as worth the interviewer's undivided attention. The individual should not be made to feel like only a single case in a succession of nameless cases of momentary interest.
31. It is a good idea to let the interviewee begin by narrating his/her story, as this approach will minimize his/her feelings of loss of control and helplessness. The interviewer should ask the witness what had happened to him/her which might be the subject of a complaint. The interviewer should listen attentively to the "narrative presentation" of the witness, and be patient with circular and repetitive statements which are not logically ordered. Allowing the witness to tell the HRO what the witness considers to be important is a critical element of establishing rapport, even though the information may not be strictly relevant to the monitoring task. Indeed, the HRO should be patient in listening to political and other discussion, which is not strictly relevant to human rights. If the witness is not permitted to tell the story in his/her own way, s/he may be reluctant to talk about sensitive issues (such as ill-treatment) which are directly relevant to the human rights field operation. The witness should be given time to develop trust and confidence in the interviewer.
32. Questions should be formulated in an understanding tone to get clarification, rather than a cool or harsh manner. The interviewer should use open-ended questions, rather than many specific questions in the style of cross-examination. In general, the interviewer should work from noncontroversial and nonsensitive questions towards more sensitive issues. The interviewer should not try to push the witness. If a topic arises that is too emotional or sensitive for the witness, change the subject and come back at a later time. Take a break during the interview or between interviews, if it appears that the witness, the interpreter, or the interviewer is growing tired. Again, the interviewer might wish to offer water or coffee. The interviewer should be respectful and sympathetic to the painful experiences the witness has suffered. The interviewer can let the witness know that the HRO is trying to help. The interviewee may need to express his/her emotions and the interviewer needs to be patient and reassuring.
33. The interviewer should try to be very careful not to communicate through body language, facial expressions, or other means that s/he does not believe what is being said. If there is a capacity for videotaping mock or practice interviews, the interviewers might want to look at themselves taking evidence, so as to assure that they do not communicate negative messages which would deter the flow of information. Some note-taking while maintaining regular eye-contact would appear to be the best way of handling a narrative statement.
34. Interviewers should avoid leading questions, because the witness may be tempted to give the questioner only the information they want -- rather than the truth. Interviewers should not directly challenge exaggerations or credibility problems. Much of the exaggerations may relate to the failure of previous fact-finders to establish their own credibility or to their failure to act on individual cases. The informants may feel they must exaggerate in order to engender action. The HROs need to build their credibility. Direct challenges to the credibility of witnesses may result in the witness refusing to provide further information. Also, other informants may hear that the interviewer does not find witnesses to be credible.
35. If the interviewer believes that the narrative is inconsistent, the interviewer should try to clarify the facts by telling the witness that s/he did not grasp the sequence of events. Once again, the interviewer should not betray skepticism, mistrust, or condescension. It may be useful to ask the same questions in different ways in order to help the individual see the facts from different perspectives and to assess the reliability of the entire story.
36. Based on the information needed to support a complaint of a human rights violation, certain information should be collected. If the witness is literate, the interviewer should ask the witness to spell each name. It may also be very useful to carry a map. The map will contain place names which might be cited during the interview. It is also useful to carry a calendar, which may help the witness keep events in order. If the witness uses numbers (persons killed, injured, etc.), the interviewer should ask how the witness knows the number. This question will enable the interviewer to get a sense of the witness' ability to observe the facts.
37. After hearing the witness' narrative statement, the interviewer may wish to ask questions about specific incidents. For example, if a witness says that soldiers came to her house, the interviewer might want to ask questions such as:
-- How could you tell that they were part of the military?
-- How were they dressed? A certain type of uniform?
-- How many soldiers were there?
-- Did they carry any weapons? If so, what kind?
-- Did you know any of their names? Their unit?
-- Did anyone else see them at your house?
-- What did they do when they arrived or while they were at the house?
-- Did they threaten you or your family?
-- Did they harm any of your family?
-- Did you have any physical contact with them?
-- If so, did they physically harm you in any way?
-- If so, were you beaten or ill-treated?
-- If so, how long did the beating take place?
-- How many blows were struck?
-- What did they use to strike you?
-- To what part(s) of your body?
-- How did you feel at that time? Later?
-- Did you have any effect on your body?
-- Did the soldiers ask you to do anything?
-- Did they ask you to leave the house?
-- Were you taken away to a jail or detention centre?
-- Where?
-- Did anything happen during the trip?
-- What happened when you arrived at the jail or detention centre?
-- What were the conditions of confinement? (Size of the cell, number of occupants, amount and nature of food, sanitary conditions, etc.)
-- Do you know the names of other persons who may have been held at the same time?
-- When were you released? How?
38. Such questions are suggested
in Chapter XIX "human Rights Reporting", Appendix 1 "Questionnaire;
Interview Form".
39. The interviewer should also ask about other witnesses or sources of information. In addition, the interviewer should ask the name, date of birth, address, and method of contacting the present witness. As a security precaution, the HRO might keep the information separate from the notes of the interview itself. Accordingly, if those notes are somehow obtained, they will probably not be able to be used easily to endanger the individual.
40. The interviewer should attempt to ascertain the kinds of information about which the witness would have personal knowledge. These questions will help in assessing later information, without in any way suggesting that the witness is being quizzed as to their credibility. The interviewer might also ask the same questions to several individuals in order to identify concordant facts. The interviewer should never, however, tell the witness what other people have said. It may be that some information, albeit inconsistent in some ways, will have concordant elements which will be useful in establishing the facts.
41. An average interview would probably run no less than 45 minutes for an involved witness. A valuable informant, who knows what has been happening in the neighbourhood, may require far longer to gather information.
F. Concluding the interview and keeping in contact
42. The interviewer should ask the witness if she or he has any questions or has thought of any additional information which might be useful. The interviewer should, once again, assure the witness of confidentiality. The interviewer may give advice to the witness, but should avoid raising false hopes. The interviewer should explain what possible follow-up actions will be pursued in connection with the problem, once again without encouraging expectations which are unlikely to be fulfilled. The interviewer may also wish to review his/her notes with the witness.
43. The interviewer should be sure to establish a mechanism for continuing communications with the witness. It may be possible to keep in touch through the telephone, a reliable contact, a religious leader, or some other individual in whom both the UN human rights field operation and the witness have trust. At a minimum, the witness should know how to get in touch with the UN operation. Always leave the door open to a person who has contacted the operation, so that s/he can reach a HRO quickly at any time, to provide any new information, or to inform about threats or reprisals received because of his/her testimony.
44. At the end of the interview, the HRO may wish to arrange a follow-up meeting with the interviewee or a way of getting together in a few days in order to give sufficient time to verify statements with other sources and to take the steps agreed upon, etc.
45. The interviewer should also verify that the interviewee has fully understood the modalities of the interview and the follow-up required, the actions to be undertaken, whether the information was given anonymously, and whether negotiation or other intervention with the authorities will be undertaken. This last precaution is necessary, because the person has the right to change his/her mind during or after the meeting.
1. Reconstructing the interview
46. After the interview is completed, the interviewer should immediately prepare complete notes on the interview based on the sketchy notes taken during the interview and the outline which was prepared in advance -- particularly if notes were not taken during the interview. The information should provide the detail which is necessary to determine what happened, when it happened, where it happened, who was involved, how it happened, and why it happened. See the Questionnaire; Interview Form found in at the end of Chapter V "Following-up and Reporting" in Appendix V - 1. The more detail contained in the report of the interview the more useful will the report be for undertaking action and in preparing more formal reports.
47. Psycholinguists have learned that recall strategies are different from strategies for communicating. The witness probably used a recall strategy during the interview; it is the task of the interviewer to communicate the material recalled into a logical presentation. In writing the interview report, it is important for the HRO to structure the story in such a way as to best communicate what happened. For example, the facts should ordinarily be presented in chronological order.
48. The interviewer should explain why s/he did or did not believe a witness' account. HROs should not, however, feel compelled to make a definitive judgement in this regard. It is not uncommon to be unsure as to a victim or witnesses' credibility. In considering issues of credibility, the interviewer should consider several general observations about credibility:
(a) A person would not ordinarily take the time and risk to give an interview unless something serious had happened. The interviewer needs to identify the information which is based upon the personal experiences of the witness. Nonetheless, the indirect information may be useful to provide leads to other relevant information.
(b) Many fact-finders consider a person to be credible if they are assertive and clear. The witness may have been neither clear nor assertive. The witness may be relatively powerless and traumatized. The culture of the country may not permit the witness to communicate so directly or even to look at the interviewer while talking. Nonetheless, there is probably a core of important information which needs to be identified.
(c) As discussed more fully in the section on interviewing torture victims, individuals who have been traumatized often have difficulties with their memory and, for this reason, may not be assertive or clear. This problem of memory loss applies to all traumatized individuals and not just torture victims.
(d) The interviewer needs to be patient with a witness who is not very clear about time sequences. Many witnesses may not refer regularly to the calendar in their daily lives. They may need to be assisted by tying the events of concern to holidays or other remarkable days which are clearly fixed.
(e) The interviewer should try to identify the information from the witness which is consistent with the information from entirely independent sources. Many fact-finders consider that a fact cannot be established unless two unrelated witnesses give concordant testimony. The reliability of the witnesses and the experience of the HROs with that reliability may be an important factor in assessing the veracity of information. Detail helps to provide credibility, and the fact that a witness is able to give a lot of particularized information is important. Also, some witnesses may have evident biases and those biases need to be factored into the assessment of veracity.
(f) The interviewer should record information provided by a witness even if the interviewer is not sure of its reliability because that information may be useful when further information is collected.
1. Verification and cross-checking of information and documentation
49. The interviewer should verify the information collected with appropriate persons - for example the family of the alleged victim, friends, neighbours, and other witnesses. In this context the interviewer may visit families, neighbours, workplaces, schools, prisons, etc. The interviewer may wish to examine documents or other records (medical records, death certificates, departure from territory, etc.). The interviewer may also collect, register, photograph, or reproduce necessary information.
50. HROs may consult with doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and forensic experts. HROs should obtain any medical reports which may be necessary. They should also request the assistance of all organizations or individuals working for the protection of human rights having knowledge of the case or the general situation.
51. The HROs or their superiors in the human rights operation should request information from the appropriate authorities. See Chapter XVIII "Following-Up and Seeking Corrective Action". The authorities should, in turn, promptly and conscientiously furnish a response. In that context, HROs may wish to consider suggesting provisional remedies to the authorities, so as to avoid aggravating the situation. If the authorities do not provide requested information within a reasonable time, HROs should make their own conclusions, recommendations, and decisions on the matter insofar as the material available permits. A "reasonable time" should ordinarily be about five days, but could be either as little as 24 hours in an urgent situation or much longer in a routine situation. The UN operation should continue to intervene politely but firmly with the authorities as long as they have not provided a satisfactory response, have not taken the required measures, or if the evolution of the case requires it.
52. Some witnesses, such as torture victims, will probably have to be interviewed several times in order to establish rapport and to allow the interviewer to get a clear and accurate understanding of their stories.
53. If possible, the HRO(s) who dealt with the case, should be entrusted with the follow-up. But, all-in-all, it is the area office staff that is responsible for the follow-up of each case. See Chapter XVIII "Following-Up and Seeking Corrective Action". This principle is essential to compensate for the effects of personnel transfers and other changes in the team (leaves of absence, sick leaves, etc.). Until the case is closed, HROs should proceed with the investigation as an "active" case of a violation.
I. Interviewing special "groups" or individuals with particular characteristics
54. HROs should be aware that some interviewees have particular characteristics, such as age or traumatic experiences, that provide special challenges. In addition, special "groups" such as women and children may need to be approached and dealt with differently. Preparation and a little extra patience is needed to interview these individuals successfully.
55. Interviewing torture victims (and witnesses who are so traumatized that they are very much like victims) about their experiences is an extremely delicate process andone which should never taken lightly. The fact-finding interview may sufficiently mimic the torturer's interrogation to raise conscious and subconscious fears in the torture victim. Interviewers should be particularly aware of the problem of sensitivity and avoid retraumatizing the victim/witness.
56. While such terms as "torture victim", "victim", and "case" are used in this Manual for ease of exposition, the HRO should be aware that such terms may dehumanize and continue the degradation which the torturer may have intended to inflict upon the individual. The individual must be made to feel important and not a subject of pity.
57. A HRO who interviews a torture victim must be prepared to deal with emotions. The HRO should empathize with the victim, and encourage him/her to talk about the traumatizing experience. If the victim becomes overcome with emotion, the interviewer should be supportive. The interviewer can suggest that they take a break from the interview, and offer water or coffee. After allowing the interviewee to regain his/her composure, the interviewer should, if possible, try to bring the interview back to less upsetting topics. HROs should be sympathetic, but should keep in mind that they are not trained psychiatrists and that their job is not to provide treatment.
58. Victims suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (particularly after experiencing torture) are characterized by severe anxiety; insomnia with nightmares about persecution, violence, or their own torture experiences; and somatic symptoms of anxiety, phobias, suspiciousness, and fearfulness. Torture victims may also suffer from psychic numbing, minimization, repression, or denial of the experience. Victims' lack of trust, shame, humiliation, and memory impairments can lead to confusing and seemingly contradictory statements, as well as inability to remember details. In short, victims may not be able to describe the torture they experienced. In such cases, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information (such as statements of friends and relatives) about the victim's history and background. HROs should, whenever possible, obtain expert medical advice.
.
59. The medical examination of a torture victim generally includes the individual's (1) pulse; (2) blood pressure; (3) height; (4) weight; (5) any significant changes in weight experienced; (6) any breakage of the teeth, bones, etc.; (7) condition (including tenderness, swelling, and flexibility) of the individual's muscles and joints; (8) bruises and scars; (9) a general assessment of the intellectual functioning and orientation of the individual; (10) voice modulation which might reveal stress; (11) any complaints about hallucinations, sleep disruption, nightmares, fear, etc.; and (12) emotional appearance, including crying, tears, trembling lips, depression, etc. In the course of the medical examination, detailed information should be recorded as to each of these subjects. Since neurological damage due to beatings may be one of the most serious medical effects of torture, the examining doctor should look for evidence of neurological damage.
60. Physical, emotional, and psychological damage may also be confirmed by using laboratory, roentgenographic, histopathological biopsy, and photographic evidence. In order to avoid identifying the individual and to obtain the individual's consent for photographs, only the affected portions of the body should be photographed. All torture victims, however, must be handled with sensitivity as to the sorts of ill-treatment they underwent and the sorts of testing they will tolerate.
61. The fact-finding doctor may also attempt to obtain access to the results of other medical or psychiatric examinations performed on the individual -- both before the detention and as soon as possible after the ill-treatment apparently occurred. By interviewing the doctors involved in any such examinations and by reading the reports, the factfinding doctor may be able to distinguish pre-existing medical conditions or self-inflicted injuries from those caused by ill-treatment, may be able to learn of bruises and other symptoms of ill-treatment which may diminish or change over time, and may be able to confirm or question his or her own diagnosis.
2. Women (2)
62. Female interviewees may be particularly reluctant or unable to talk about rape or other forms of sexual violence -- particularly because of the social stigma attached to such suffering. Extra effort should be made to develop rapport with women who may have suffered rape or other sexual violence. More effort should be made to assure that the woman wants to be interviewed and understands that the information will be kept confidential or used in only the ways she accepts. The interviewee should be informed that she may refuse to answer any question she finds uncomfortable and can stop the interview at any time. Great delicacy is necessary in establishing the basic facts of torture or other abuse, including what occurred, when, where, by whom, and whether there were other witnesses. Once those facts have been established, however, there may be no need to dwell upon the details of abuse.
63. If at all possible, a female member of the UN human rights field operation should conduct the interview and a female interpreter should be used. The female HRO should be sensitive and yet objective in handling the interview. The HRO should be alert to signs that the interview is causing the retraumatization of the witness. If the witness is overcome by memories of her suffering, the interview should be suspended briefly or resumed at another time. The officer should be aware of the differences in cross-cultural communication which may occur in talking with a stranger. For example, a woman may be reluctant to make eye contact, because of the dictates of her culture. The HRO should inquire as to whether the woman needs medical and/or psychological care. However, as in every other interview situation, careshould be taken to avoi making offers or promises which cannot be kept.
3. Refugees and other displaced persons
64. It is important to be sensitive to the fact that refugees and displaced persons are under a lot of stress due to the fact that they are without resources, and away from their homes and (possibly) families. The interviewer should determine the refugee's current status. Are they at risk of being sent back to their home country/region? Are they seeking asylum or resettlement? The interviewer should be sure to find out where the refugee is staying (camp, placement in a home, etc.) Such information is important for future follow-up action.
65. The interviewer may begin by asking why the individual fled his/her country or region. This question will eventually lead into a discussion of the human rights abuses experienced by the refugee. The interviewer should empathize not only with the refugee's experiences as a victim or witness of human rights violations, but also with his/her feelings of uncertainty, displacement, and loss of control.
66. Corroborating the testimony of refugees and displaced persons presents a special problem as it may not be possible to visit their home country or region. It is especially important, therefore, to review with the interviewee his/her testimony to check for detail and veracity. Further corroboration may be obtained by interviewing other refugees/displaced persons from the same area.
67. A child perceives the world very differently than an adult. The interviewer should keep in mind this difference and should approach the interview differently according to the age, maturity, and understanding of the child. It will probably be necessary to use simpler language and to spend more time developing rapport with a child who needs to be interviewed. If an interpreter is needed, the HRO may wish to identify an interpreter who is either trained for or accustomed to dealing with children. It may be particularly useful to explain more carefully the role of the HRO, the interview process, and the need to ask certain types of questions. The HRO should encourage the child to ask questions during the interview and to indicate if s/he does not understand a question or the reasons for asking it. The HRO should expect that the interview will require patience and more time than usual. The HRO should be attentive to signs that the child is growing anxious or overwhelmed. It may be necessary to interrupt the interview, to take a break, or to return another day.
68. In addition to interviewing the child, the interviewer should (if possible) talk to members of the child's family and community, teachers, other care-givers, etc. who have provided services. It may also be useful to seek advice from individuals with expertise in understanding the child's perspective.
69. Like members of indigenous groups, individuals accustomed to a rural lifestyle may have a different conception of time. It is important to clarify statements about dates and times. Precise dates may have little meaning, so it is important for the interviewer to use a familiar frame of reference. For example, the interviewer may ask "Did that happen before or after the planting season?"
70. It is also important to keep in mind that poor, uneducated, or otherwise vulnerable individuals may lack confidence and may be reluctant to share information. Local human rights organizations may be of assistance by working to reassure the interviewees who are afraid to come forward with information. (3)
71. Indigenous communities may have a way of life that is very different from the rest of the society or country -- or indeed, from that of the fact-finder. The interviewer should be sensitive to and respectful of differences in language, methods of communication, sense of time, and social structure. If possible, the interviewer should learn about the particular indigenous group's culture and customs before the interview.
Lower-income groups including slum-dwellers, squatters, and those living in poverty generally may also have different views and perspectives than those working for human rights field operations. The poor may just as easily have unrealistically high expectations of an improved standard of living as a result of the UN operation as they may be entirely distrustful of uninvited involvement in their communities. Great care should be exercised by field workers to recognize and understand points of view which may, at first glance, appear difficult to fathom. For instance, a squatter community (even if they might have occupied the land in question for many decades) might become suspicious if the human rights worker begins immediately discussing issues of law. The often massive discrepancies between income and opportunities of the human rights worker and persons belonging to lower-income groups, too, may create significant hurdles in securing fruitful cooperation.
8. Government officials and suspected perpetrators
72. Interviewing authorities is very different from interviewing victims or witnesses of human rights violations, and requires both diplomacy and careful planning. The interviewer must probe statements without being too confrontational. The interviewer must remain polite, and keep an open mind while questioning. The more significant the interview, the more important would be the preparation. The interviewer should, as suggested above, prepare a list of questions and should even think carefully about the order of the questions. Such an order of questions should not be too rigidly followed, because it will be more important to respond to the information provided by the Government official and to ask follow-up questions. If possible, Government officials should be interviewed after the UN human rights field operation has gathered a fair amount of information, but with time to collect more material. This approach will allow the Government to give explanations of statements made by victims and witnesses, and permit the UN operation to make further inquiries with regard to the Government's responses.
73.
A difficult situation may arise when, in the course of interviewing an individual,
the interviewer comes to believe that the interviewee is or was involved in
personally persecuting others. This scenario should be discussed in advance,
so that the interviewer has a plan of action should this situation arise. In
general, it is important to gather the individual's information and include
it in the interview report. Occasionally a Government official will provide
invaluable information regarding human rights abuses.
___________________________________
1. Glenn Randal and Ellen Lutz, Serving Survivors of Torture 64-67 (1991).
2. See UNHCR, Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women (1991); UNHCR, Sexual Violence against Refugees, Guidelines on Prevention and Response 32-34, 38-41 (1995).
3. Daniel J. Ravindran, Manuel Guzman, Babes Ignacio eds., Handbook on Fact-Finding and Documentation of Human Rights Violations 41 (1994).