Doctors in prison: documenting torture in detention From the prisoners’ point of view, they may be reluctant to talk about their torture experience to the prison doctor for two different reasons. First of all, it is the overall context of the situation in the country, and fear not only for themselves but also for their families, which will often make prisoners hesitant to consult the prison doctor about any sequelae of torture. Rightly or wrongly, they will fear reprisals for having “complained” about it. Second, torture by its very nature is a subject that prisoners do not broach easily. It involves the infliction not only of pain and suffering, but also of humiliating and degrading practices, which prisoners understandably will have great difficulties speaking about. Therefore, it cannot be repeated enough that empathy – real and not merely formal and institutional – is a paramount condition for anyone working with victims of torture and aiming to earn their trust. Physicians coming from the outside who document torture will normally not start with the handicap of mistrust that confronts even the most well-meaning prison doctor. This initial trust comes with a great deal of responsibility on the doctor, who will have to know exactly what his/her terms of reference are, and then only accept to interview prisoners if it is certain within reasonable doubt that no one will suffer reprisals or punishments for having spoken out. It is essential here that any prisoner interviewed is seen in private by the interviewing prison doctor. Risk factors in documenting torture Documentation of torture in a country where torture takes place may well put both documenter and those being documented at risk. There is a risk for the prison doctor to be seen as collecting information which might be used to incriminate perpetrators of torture or their superiors having authorised its use. Such a prison doctor must consequently be very objectively aware of the possible risk s/he may be taking. Even more important, the risk to the prisoners, whose trust s/he must obtain and who will provide information on torture, also needs to be assessed. Documenting torture should never become an absolute objective in itself. The principle to keep constantly in mind is primum non nocere – “First, do no harm”. Even in the general 23