The compliance with the Istanbul Protocol in the asylum procedure: A qualitative comparative study between Greece and the Netherlands.

Abstract

Background. In 1999, the Istanbul Protocol (IP) a manual of effective investigation and documentation of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was created. Its importance and usefulness on recognizing alleged victims of torture (VoT) is undoubtable and its use is recommended by the Committee Against Torture (CAT) to every member state. However, its non-legally binding character in combination with the lack of awareness about its existence, result in confusion and conflict among the relevant actors, which have negative consequences on the alleged VoT, especially in the asylum procedure. This study explores how different actors comply with the IP in the asylum procedure in Greece and the Netherlands and how their compliance affects the alleged victims of torture. Methods. This was a qualitative comparative study between Greece and the Netherlands, in which fourteen experts of the IP participated through semi-structure interviews. Thematic-content analysis was applied and the results were presented in the context of the compliance theory and the street level bureaucrat’s theory. Results. The Dutch state complies with the IP, while the Greek state does not. In both countries, however, the asylum officers disbelieve the stories of the alleged VoT most of the times, and often reject the IP reports made by NGOs. Conclusion. The variation on compliance by different actors with the IP in the asylum procedure is caused by a combination of personal, organizational and regulatory characteristics. This study has highlighted the importance of formulating an accurate national legislation, which incorporate the IP based on international law, and the importance of making the IP principles legally binding in order to create a common methodology on how to assess the alleged VoT during the asylum procedure.