For others, the judicial process may have a negative, even re-traumatising impact on the torture victim. A general distrust in state institutions and a feeling that perpetrators are not adequately punished, particularly if the trial takes place in the country where the torture occurred, may lead to an underlying distrust of the legal process. Participation in a judicial process can also result in the victim having high expectations – for example that the perpetrator is brought to justice, or that they are able to share their story – which may not be met in reality. In many legal systems, a victim’s participation in criminal proceedings has been restricted to that of witness or observer, often unable to speak in his/her own words and with limited procedural rights. For example, judges, prosecutors and lawyers may only allow limited interventions from the victim and often they will only be interested in specific aspects of the victim’s experience which they consider directly relevant to the presentation of the case. The credibility of the victim may also be questioned – including in open court under crossexamination. The victim may be asked to speak in public about a very traumatic and humiliating experience that perhaps they have not even recounted to their closest family members. While these limitations may feel unfair to the victim, they are often the direct consequence of the court’s obligation to ensure the right of the accused to a fair trial. The frequent lack of care and attention shown to victims by court personnel can also have a negative effect on a torture victim’s well-being. Victims can feel disillusioned by what is commonly perceived to be an offender-oriented criminal procedure and will often expect the judge and other parties to show more understanding of their trauma. They may also fail to understand why court proceedings focus on the defendant. In addition, many courts still lack adequate security measures for victims and witnesses during trial with victims sharing a waiting room with offenders, or receiving threats at court. Finally, legal proceedings can be lengthy and are based on procedural rules that are often not clearly explained to the victim or may be misunderstood, thereby raising expectations in relation to the time frame and possible outcomes of the trial that may not be met. A public trial is likely to be an emotionally painful and stressful process with the risk of the victim’s existing psychological state worsening, resulting in re-traumatisation. Even if a complete recovery has been previously achieved, the painful memories that a torture victim has to confront may increase the prevalence and severity of the symptoms suffered as a result of the torture.6 Re-traumatisation can also occur due to the victim feeling disempowered by the justice system and the limited role given to them in the proceedings. Memories of the event may be reactivated by attending court and coming 9