Mendez principle to replace torture and coercive interrogation

Source: The Hindu

Relevance: Mendez anti-torture principles can be used to reduce the use of torture in obtaining evidence.

Synopsis:  Without addressing the structural constraints that encourage the persistence of torture, Institutionalising Mendez anti-torture principles in India will be difficult.

Background

• Instilling fear through torture, either physical or psychological to obtain the truth, is still seen as an effective interrogation technique by security forces. However, such techniques violate moral and legal standards.
• In the Indian context, too, enough evidence indicates that the belief in the utility of torture is embedded in institutional culture and accommodated by law.
• In spite of the prohibition of and safeguards against “third-degree methods”, they are normalised in police practice.
  • For instance, the National Human Rights Commission has said that “custodial violence and torture is so rampant in this country that it has become almost routine”.
  • Even, a 2019 survey of about 12,000 police personnel across India, published by Common Cause and Lokniti confirmed the same. For instance, Three out of four personnel felt that it is justified for the police to be violent towards “criminals”.
• However, there needs to be a fundamental shift in police thinking.

Why coercive interrogations still exist?

• One, Structural constraints encourage the persistence of torture, since it is seen to be effective.
• Two, investigating officers have little scope to develop specialisation in investigative work.
• Three, inadequate resources, political pressure, and an overburdened legal system compelled them to take matters into their own hands.
• Four, Popular films, and political and public support to illegal police killings as in the Hyderabad ‘Disha’ case 2019, further legitimise such actions.
• Five, Indian law still allows evidence obtained through torture or coercive methods as admissible.
  • For example, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits the admissibility of statements before the police if they relate to the recovery of material objects, often called ‘recovery evidence’.

Why coercive interrogations are counterproductive?

• Méndez’s Principles that are based on scientific empirical studies across disciplines (Psychology, criminology, sociology, neuroscience) had established that coercive interrogation is counterproductive.

What are Mendez’s principles?

• The ‘Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering’ is also known as the ‘Méndez Principles’. It reinforces the empirical evidence that torture does not work.
• It was initiated by Mr. Méndez, a former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.
• The principles seek to prevent coercive techniques and torture by introducing a paradigm shift away from “confession” based on information gathering.
• It aims to replace torture and coercive interrogation with “rapport-based” interviews, that would be in line with legal and procedural safeguards.
• It offers practical guidance for non-coercive interrogations; addresses vulnerabilities in custody and provides specific guidance on training, accountability, and implementation.
• ‘Méndez Principles’ were developed through a comprehensive, expert-driven consultative process.
• It applies to all authorities who have the power to detain and question people, including the police, military, and intelligence.

What is the way forward?

• Need to use scientific techniques of interrogation, such as lie detectors and narco-analysis, to end physical torture.
• However, Jinee Lokaneeta’s analysis in The Truth Machines (2020) revealed that the introduction of these techniques, without addressing the existing conditions, has resulted in psychological forms of torture.

Structural constraints, popular culture, and political approval have institutionalised violence and coercion techniques to obtain the truth. Without urgent introspection, Méndez’s anti-torture vision will remain distant for India.