evaluation. Examples of various contexts include, but are not limited to, the following: (d) Safety of witnesses 95. The State is responsible for protecting alleged victims, witnesses and their families from violence, threats of violence or any other form of intimidation that may arise pursuant to the investigation. Those potentially implicated in torture should be removed from any position of control or power, whether direct or indirect over complainants, witnesses and their families as well as those conducting investigations. Investigators must give constant consideration to the effect of the investigation on the safety of the person alleging torture and other witnesses. (i) In prison or detention in the individual’s home country; (ii) In prison or detention in another country; (iii) Not in detention in the home country but in a hostile oppressive climate; (iv) Not in detention in the home country during a time of peace and security; (v) In another country that may be friendly or hostile; 96. One suggested technique for providing a measure of safety to interviewees, including prisoners in countries in conflict situations, is to write down and keep safe the identities of people visited so that investigators can follow up on the safety of those individuals at a future return visit. Investigators must be allowed to talk to anyone and everyone, freely and in private, and be allowed to repeat the visit to these same persons (thus the need for traceable identities of those interviewed) as the need arises. Not all countries accept these conditions, and investigators may find it difficult to obtain similar guarantees. In cases in which witnesses are likely to be put in danger because of their testimony, the investigator should seek other forms of evidence. (vi) In a refugee camp setting; (vii) In a war crimes tribunal or truth commission. 93. The political context may be hostile towards the victim and the examiner, for example, when detainees are interviewed while they are held in prison by their governments or while they are detained by foreign governments in order to be deported. In countries where asylum-seekers are examined in order to establish evidence of torture, the reluctance to acknowledge claims of trauma and torture may be politically motivated. The possibility of further endangering the safety of the detainee is very real and must be taken into account during every evaluation. Even in cases where persons alleging torture are not in imminent danger, investigators should use great care in their contact with them. The investigator’s choice of language and attitude will greatly affect the alleged victim’s ability and willingness to be interviewed. The location of the interview should be as safe and comfortable as possible, including access to toilet facilities and refreshments. Sufficient time should be allotted to interview the alleged torture victim. Investigators should not expect to get the full story during the first interview. Questions of a private nature will be traumatic for the alleged victim. The investigator must be sensitive in tone, phrasing and sequencing of questions, given the traumatic nature of the alleged victim’s testimony. The witness must be told of the right to stop the questioning at any time, to take a break if needed or to choose not to respond to any question. 97. Prisoners are in greater potential danger than persons who are not in custody. Prisoners might have different reactions to different situations. In one situation, prisoners may unwittingly put themselves in danger by speaking out too rashly, thinking they are protected by the very presence of the “outside” investigator. This may not be the case. In other situations, investigators may come up against a “wall of silence”, as prisoners are far too intimidated to trust anyone, even when offered talks in private. In the latter case, it may be necessary to start with “group interviews”, so as to be able to explain clearly the scope and purpose of the investigation and subsequently offer to have interviews in private with those persons who desire to speak. If the fear of reprisals, justified or not, is too great, it may be necessary to interview all prisoners in a given place of custody, so as not to pinpoint any specific person. Where an investigation leads to prosecution or another public truth-telling forum, the investigator should recommend measures to prevent harm to the alleged torture victim by such means as expunging names and other information that identifies the person from the public records or offering the person an opportunity to testify through image or voice-altering devices or closed circuit television. These measures must be consistent with the rights of the accused. 94. Psychological counsellors or those trained in working with torture victims should be accessible, if possible, to the alleged torture victim, witnesses and members of the investigating team. Retelling the facts of the torture may cause the person to relive the experience or suffer other trauma-related symptoms (see chapter IV, sect. H). Hearing details of torture may result in secondary trauma symptoms to interviewers, and they must be encouraged to discuss their reactions with one another, respecting their professional ethical requirements of confidentiality. Wherever possible, this should be with the help of an experienced facilitator. There are two particular risks to be aware of: first, there is a danger that the interviewer may identify with those alleging torture and not be sufficiently challenging of the story; second, the interviewer may become so used to hearing histories of torture that he or she diminishes in his or her own mind the experiences of the person being interviewed. (e) Use of interpreters 98. Working through an interpreter when investigating torture is not easy, even with professionals. It will not always be possible to have interpreters on hand for all different dialects and languages, and sometimes it may be necessary to use interpreters from the person’s family or cultural group. This is not ideal, as the person may not always feel comfortable talking about the torture experience through people he or she knows. Ideally, the interpreter should be part of the investigating team and knowl- 20