United Kingdom — Engaging with government authorities to improve decisionmaking in cases involving victims of torture The UK has had a policy in place (since 2006) to address the handling of claims where torture is raised. Research conducted by Freedom from Torture, Body of Evidence: Treatment of Medico-Legal Reports for Survivors of Torture in the UK Asylum Tribunal in May 2011111 examining the treatment of medical evidence by Immigration Judges in appeals against refusal of asylum and assessing their compliance with good practice standards, identified the need for the Home Office to improve the standard of initial decision-making, reflected in the high appeal overturn rate documented in the report. The Home Office accepted the recommendations made by the report and has subsequently developed and piloted new guidance112 with input from Freedom from Torture and the Helen Bamber Foundation, a UK-based human rights organisation working with survivors of torture and other human rights violations. The pilot scheme highlighted a number of best practice guidelines for immigration authorities when considering claims that involve allegations of torture, for example: • Engagement with civil society organisations with expertise in the medical documentation of torture in the development of policy guidance; • Recognition that referral of an applicant to an organisation for an MLR to be produced can take time and placing a hold on consideration of the asylum application until the MLR is submitted, whilst granting asylum in those cases where there is sufficient evidence to make a positive decision, irrespective of whether an MLR is submitted. • Recognition of specialist expertise irrespective of clinical background (for example whether the writer qualified as a GP, consultant or other health care professional) where the report has been compiled using the standards and terms employed by the Istanbul Protocol, the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment and where details of the clinician’s qualifications, training and experience are provided. • Provision of guidance to decision-makers to prevent their purporting to make clinical judgments of their own, for example, as to the causation of physical or psychological injuries, or the accuracy of a diagnosis or to late disclosure or discrepancies in the testimony when a clinical explanation has been provided in the report. • Provision of guidance to decision-makers on the correct approach to assessing the evidence, specifically the need to consider all evidence in the round including the expert medical evidence, and ensuring that a conclusion on the overall credibility of a claim is not reached without careful consideration of the medico-legal report. • The importance of facilitated training for the correct application and implementation of guidance, providing a practical understanding of the Istanbul Protocol and appropriate case law and involving the input of experts in the field, including health and legal professionals from organisations providing MLRs. The pilot scheme has now come to an end, with updated guidance incorporating the learning from the pilot due to be published by the end of 2013. The roll out of policy guidance alongside facilitated training to decision-makers nationwide would represent an important step towards addressing the problems identified in the treatment of medico-legal evidence by decision-makers at the initial stage of the UK asylum system and provide an example of promising practice for other asylum-receiving countries to refer to. Recognising victims of torture in national asylum procedures / 61