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) in-terviews in relation to the evaluation process, satisfaction, difficulties encountered, and compliance with therapeutic aspects. All as-sessments 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 prob-lems and a lack of adequate material resources in the remote assessments, requiring a signifi-cantly 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 under-standing 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 fo-rensic 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 assess-ment should be preferred.