Part II Preventing torture: NHRIs in action | Section II Contributing to the implementation of the legal framework The first step is to conduct an interview with the alleged victim as promptly as possible (see chapter 5 for more information). Following the interview, it is crucial to check the information you have collected and assess the reliability of the allegations made.28 To help you make this assessment, it is important to consider if: • the testimony is convincing and internally consistent • the testimony is consistent with information from other independent sources • the testimony corresponds to known patterns of torture and ill-treatment • other testimonies corroborate the victim’s statement • other physical corroboration is found during on-site visits • there is medical evidence of torture • there are physical indicators of torture (however, the absence of physical signs does not mean that torture did not occur) • there are psychological indicators of torture. The testimony is convincing and internally consistent In some allegations of torture it may be difficult to find evidence other than the testimony of the victim. If the victim’s account sounds true – in other words, the account is consistent and does not contradict itself – this will provide an important first step in your inquiries. Where possible, this account should be matched with other types of information that may provide corroboration. It is essential, therefore, to gather as much detailed information as possible. It is important to bear in mind the particular difficulties involved in taking statements from victims of torture, as many will have been traumatized by the experience. They may give inaccurate information because they are ashamed of what has been done to them or they may be reluctant to disclose information for other reasons. Their distress may also cause them to appear evasive. People who have been victims of sexual assault may feel particularly ashamed and unable to speak about the experience. The testimony is consistent with information from other independent sources The testimony corresponds to known patterns of torture and ill-treatment It can often be difficult to cross-check the details of a specific allegation of torture, however, it is possible to check it against information that is already known. This information might relate to agencies that are likely to commit torture, to places where torture is likely to occur and to allegations of torture that have been reported in the past. Other testimonies corroborate the victim’s statement By its very nature, torture is almost always carried out in secret. As a result it can be difficult to find and interview the sort of witnesses that might be available when investigating other human rights violations. However, there are still potential witnesses who may be able to corroborate a victim’s allegation of torture including: • people who were present when the victim was taken into custody. They might provide information about who took the victim away, when this happened, how the person was treated and the physical condition of the person at that time. 28 Complete accuracy is seldom expected of torture victims. See Kisoki v. Sweden, Committee against Torture, Communication 41/1996, views adopted on 8 May 1996. Chapter 4: Investigating allegations of torture | 37