Key shortfalls: early identification of victims of torture • There remains significant gaps both in law and policy in most countries covered by the report concerning the early identification of VoTs. The case studies in Part 3 show that even where there is a policy in place, it is often poorly implemented, therefore failing to provide the necessary protection to VoTs. • Where there is a specific policy in place for identifying VoTs, this is often part of a policy to detain asylum-seekers, e.g. in Australia and the UK. The identification of VoTs within detention settings is only of benefit to VoTs if it leads to their immediate release, given the debilitating effect that detention is recognised as having on the physical and mental health of an individual. • In the EU, the standards and extent of implementation of procedures to identify vulnerable persons varies widely between Member States. However, the new provisions to the Reception Conditions Directive place a legal obligation on Member States to introduce mechanisms for screening asylum-seekers to identify those who are vulnerable and have special reception needs. Key shortfalls: use and acceptance of MLRs in national asylum procedures • There are concerns that the quality of MLRs does not always meet the standards outlined in the Istanbul Protocol. Some countries have indicated there is a lack of suitably trained medical professionals to produce MLRs to the standards outlined in the Istanbul Protocol. • Concerns have been raised about the independence of medical staff carrying out MLRs, particularly in cases where the asylum-seeker is in detention. In cases where state institutions provide MLRs, it is paramount that the medical staff is independent and impartial, as reflected in the Istanbul Protocol. • Immigration officials acceptance of MLRs continues to be varied. MLRs are often rejected due to a lack of understanding of how the evidence should be considered. • Access to and financing of an MLR in most cases is difficult, particularly when immigration authorities and judges rarely order an independent MLR to be financed within the procedural costs of an asylum case. Key shortfalls: specific areas of concern • Accelerated procedures are increasingly used by asylum-receiving countries to attempt to process certain types of claims more quickly. Accelerated procedures hinder the full and proper examination of an asylum claim, and fail to take into account that extended time may be required to obtain medical and/or psychological evidence in support of a past torture claim. • The detention of asylum-seekers, but particularly those who are vulnerable, is a major concern and occurs in the majority of the countries covered by this report. No asylum applicant should have to be detained during the asylum procedure, and where detention is needed to effect removal of failed asylum-seekers, it should only ever be used as a measure of last resort and in exceptional circumstances. • The detention of VoTs is of particular concern to the IRCT given that immigration detention is highly likely to cause re-traumatisation. Research from various countries indicates that detention exacerbates health problems, both in the short and long-term.148 • The shortage of public funding and other financial resources are key issues of concern for IRCT’s member centres when providing services to asylum-seekers. States must recognise that 70 / Recognising victims of torture in national asylum procedures