Citation

Vogel H. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2016; 45: 8-16.

Affiliation

Insitut für Rechtsmedizin des Universitätskrankenhauses Eppendorf, Butenfeld 34, 22529 Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: Hermann.Vogel@gmx.de.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.jflm.2016.09.003

PMID

27865157

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Maltreatment in custody overlaps with torture. Concerned governments avoid informing. These governments withhold information and try to impose definitions. Therefore, reports often cannot be verified, with the consequence being classified as "allegation". The misery of a victim influences the recording. Engaged parties modify their reporting according to their intention. The difficulty to verify reports and the position of governments affects the perception and in consequence the presentation.

METHODS: Corporeal effects of maltreatment in custody are described. They rely on personal observations, on cases treated in the rehabilitations centres for victims of torture, and personal collections of colleagues. Therefore the material is selective.

RESULTS: One can differentiate between not life-threatening maltreatment (with or without mutilation), life-threatening maltreatment, and maltreatment meant to kill. Examples are described. The possibilities of diagnostic imaging are mentioned. The limits of the given overview are pointed out.

CONCLUSION: Knowing the possible forms is the basis to recognize allegations. Diagnostic imaging can prove maltreatment in rare cases, only. Reports and observations of maltreatment in custody create emotions. Governments and their organisation react, they withhold information and impose definitions. On the other hand, engaged parties insist that the misery of the victim has priority over the objective description. These positions influence and modify the perception and the use of allegations of maltreatment in custody.

Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.

Language: en