so as to have time to write down the main points of what has been said between sessions. turn, the outcome of the investigation. Likewise, the personal reactions of the investigator towards the person can also affect the process of the interview and the outcome of the investigation. It is important to examine the barriers to effective communication and the understanding that these personal reactions might impose on an investigation. The investigator should maintain an ongoing examination of the interview and investigation process through consultation and discussion with colleagues familiar with the field of psychological assessment and treatment of torture survivors. This type of peer supervision can be an effective means of monitoring the interview and investigation process for biases and barriers to effective communication and for obtaining accurate information (see chapter VI, sect. C.2). 152. Investigators should remember to talk to the person and to maintain eye contact, even if he or she has a natural tendency to speak to the interpreter. It helps to use the second person when speaking through the interpreter, for example “what did you do next”, rather than the third person “ask him what happened next”. All too often, investigators write their notes during the time when the interpreter is either translating the question or the interviewee answering it. Some investigators do not appear to be listening, as the interview is going on in a language they do not understand. This should not be the case, as it is essential for investigators to observe not just the words but also the body language, facial expressions, tone of voice and gestures of the interviewee if they are to obtain a full picture. Investigators should familiarize themselves with torture-related words in the person’s language so as to show that they know about the issue. Reacting, rather than showing a blank face, when hearing a torture-related word such as submarino or darmashakra will add to the investigator’s credibility. 149. Despite all precautions, physical and psychological examinations by their very nature may re-traumatize the patient by provoking or exacerbating symptoms of post-traumatic stress by reviving painful effects and memories (see chapter VI, sect. B.2). Questions about psychological distress and, especially, about sexual matters are considered taboo in most traditional societies, and the asking of such questions is regarded as irreverent or insulting. If sexual torture was part of the violations incurred, the claimant may feel irredeemably stigmatized and tainted in his or her moral, religious, social or psychological integrity. The expression of a respectful awareness of these conditions, as well as the clarification of confidentiality and its limits, are, therefore, of paramount importance for a well-conducted interview. A subjective assessment has to be made by the evaluator about the extent to which pressing for details is necessary for the effectiveness of the report in court, especially if the claimant demonstrates obvious signs of distress in the interview. I. 153. When visiting prisoners, it is best never to use local interpreters if there is a possibility of their being considered untrustworthy by those interviewed. It may also be unfair for the local interpreters, who may be “debriefed” by the local authorities after a visit, or otherwise put under pressure, to be involved with political prisoners. It is best to use independent interpreters, clearly seen as coming from elsewhere. The next best thing to speaking the local language fluently is to work with a trained interpreter with experience, who is sensitive to the issue of torture and to the local culture. As a rule, codetainees should not be used for interpretation, unless it is obvious that the interviewee has chosen someone he or she trusts. In the case of people who are not in detention, many of these same rules also apply, but it may be easier to bring in someone (a local person) from the outside, which is rarely possible in prison situations. Use of interpreters 150. For many purposes, it is necessary to use an interpreter to allow the interviewer to understand what is being said. Although the interviewer and the interviewee may share a little of a common language, the information being sought is often too important to risk the errors that arise from an incomplete understanding of one another. Interpreters must be advised that what they hear and interpret in interviews is strictly confidential. It is the interpreters who get all the information, first-hand and uncensored. Individuals must be given assurances that neither the investigator nor the interpreter will misuse information in any way (see chapter VI, sect. C.2). J. Gender issues 154. Ideally, an investigation team should contain specialists of both genders, permitting the person who says that they have been tortured to choose the gender of the investigator and, where necessary, the interpreter. This is particularly important when a woman has been detained in a situation where rape is known to happen, even if she has not, so far, complained of it. Even if no sexual assault takes place, most torture has sexual aspects (see chapter V, sect. D.8). The re-traumatization can often be worse if she feels she has to describe what happened to a person who is physically similar to her torturers, who will inevitably have been mostly or entirely men. In some cultures, it would be impossible for a male investigator to question a female victim, and this must be respected. However, in most cultures, if there is only a male physician available, many women would prefer to talk to him rather than a female of another profession in order to gain the medical information and advice that she wants. In such a case, it is essential that the interpreter, if used, be female. Some interviewees may also prefer that the interpreter be from 151. When the interpreter is not a professional, there is always the risk of the investigator losing control of the interview. Individuals may be carried away talking to the person who speaks their language, and the interview may divert from the issues at hand. There is also a risk that an interpreter with a bias might lead the interviewee on or distort the replies. Loss of information, sometimes relevant, sometimes not, is inevitable when working through interpretation. In extreme cases, it may even be necessary for investigators to refrain from taking notes during interviews and carry out interviews in several short sessions, 30