NATIONAL REPORT 2016 local needs in each context. There is no single intervention that is guaranteed to work for everyone in any given context. Despite the risks involved, many victims in the Philippines do try to obtain recognition and accountability for torture because it is seen as an important part of their full rehabilitation. While the law contains progressive provisions on investigation, prosecution and victims support; victims and their relatives’ lack adequate information regarding their rights under the law, and the options available to them to lodge a complaint and to access rehabilitation. Furthermore, the process of investigating, prosecuting and granting redress to victims for torture and ill-treatment remains deeply flawed. Victims rarely have access to medical and psychological documentation of their trauma and once they do, the health professionalsare often ill-trained or under pressure to produce pre-defined findings. Social workers, public defenders, and jail officers generally do not have the awareness nor the skills to screen persons-at-risk for signs that they have been subjected to torture or ill treatment. When investigations do produce good evidence, the common use of blindfolding, in itself constituting torture under the Anti-Torture Act, effectively prevents victims from visually identifying their perpetrators. Combined with the restrictive approach to voice identification taken by the prosecutor in the Lenin Salas case, this significantly complicates the identification of perpetrators and effectively encourages the use of blindfolding as a means of escaping justice. A related problem is the military’s reluctance to cooperate with the prosecutor’s office in producing alleged perpetrators within their ranks who have been identified by name and association. This was clearly illustrated in the Ronel Cabais case. These problems are aggravated by the lack of focus at the investigative and prosecution stages on pursuing command responsibility for which there is ample room in the Anti-Torture Act. In instances where a detainee or an arrested person is brought to a government hospital for a medical check-up, MAG have found that doctors often simply undertake a “cursory physical examination” without bothering to ask how an injury may have been sustained by the patient or they do not include in their report a finding that torture may have been committed against the patient or detainee. Medical certificates refer only to visible bruises or contusions with a formulaic assessment of how long the victim is likely to need medical treatment. MAG particularly notes that some medical personnel experience pressure from authorities allegedly involved in torture cases. It cites incidents where victims are examined by doctors assigned to major Philippine National Police (PNP) or Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) health facilities. This means that police officials are present during physical and medical examinations and, in some cases, supervise the work of medical doctors themselves. MAG adds that there are no real safeguards in place to ensure that health personnel are not subjected to police intimidation, are able to examine victims independently of the police, and able to maintain the confidentiality of medical reports. Moreover there are very few health professional in the Philippines who have the necessary skills to thoroughly document torture and ill-treatment and health professionals often avoid even attempting to document torture due to fear of reprisals. A Balay employee (standing, right) supporting a victim of torture before going to surgery for a head injury. © courtesy of Balay page 10