O RGANIZED V IOLENCE AND T ORTURE

Organized violence

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence (WHO Global Consultation on Violence and Health, 1996) as:

The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

There are different approaches to a definition of types of violence (Dennen, 2005), such as structural levels (intra-family to intercultural), dimensions and dichotomies (direct/indirect, organized/unorganized, actual/potential), according to the criteria of legality and legitimacy, with regard to the context and so on.

The WHO proposes three types of violence (Krug, 2002) as follows: self-directed (e.g.

suicidal thoughts and behavior, self-mutilation), interpersonal (e.g. family and intimate partner violence, community violence between unrelated individuals), and collective violence (social, political, economic). Collective violence that is committed to advance a particular social agenda includes, for example, crimes of hate committed by organized groups, terrorist acts and mob violence. Political violence includes war, and related violent conflicts, state violence and similar acts carried out by larger groups. Economic violence includes attacks by larger groups motivated by economic gain – such as attacks carried out with the purpose of disrupting eco-nomic activity, denying access to essential services, or creating ecoeco-nomic division and frag-mentation. Various forms of collective violence have been recognized, including:

- Wars, terrorism, and other violent political conflicts that occur within or between states;

- State-perpetrated violence such as genocide, repression, disappearances, torture and other abuses of human rights;

- Organized violent crime such as banditry and gang warfare.

Despite this definition, the term “collective violence” is being used differently in sociobi-ological studies (Wrangham & Wilson, 2004), in social, sociocultural and -political essays about violence (J. Green, 2003; Staub, 1999; Young, 1991), or emergency medical aspects in response to terrorism (Garcia-Castrillo Riesgo & Garcia Merino, 2003; Neuner, 2003).

How-ever, in studies of the characteristics and consequences of torture, war and forced migration, the psychological literature most often refers to the term “organized violence” (Almqvist &

Broberg, 2003; Basoglu, 1993; Eytan, Gex-Fabry, Toscani, Deroo, Loutan, & Bovier, 2004;

Van Velsen, Gorst-Unsworth, & Turner, 1996), still, without consistent definition. Other authors use terms like “state-sponsored violence” (S. Weine & Laub, 1995) and “severe human rights violations” (Silove, 1999) to describe related occurrences. For the purpose of this thesis, I will refer to the definition of organized violence according to Neuner (2003):

Organized violence is violence that is directly and actually applied with a systematic strategy by members of a group with at least a minimum of centrally guided structure (police units, rebel organizations, terror organizations, paramili-tary and miliparamili-tary formations). It is applied with certain continuity against indi-viduals and groups with a different political attitude, nationality as well as racial, cultural or ethnical background. It is characterized by the violation of central hu-man rights or other basic rights of people.

According to this definition, Neuner (2003) classifies three types of organized violence:

The first type is the permanent state-sponsored persecution that is present in all dictatorships, and even in some countries that are considered democracies. This harassment includes different forms of violence like torture, extralegal executions, disappearances etc. The second type is the massive violence committed against people in an interstate war or a civil war. The third type of organized violence is characterized by violence committed by terror organizations.

Torture

There are various definitions of torture by distinct organizations and in different interna-tional treaties, reflecting the different contexts in which they were drafted, and the purposes of the treaties in which they appear. The UN convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) defines torture as follows:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally flicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person in-formation or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has com-mitted or is suspected of having comcom-mitted, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or ac-quiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

The convention is concerned with torture that is committed by government agents or by people who act with official sanctions. The Optional Protocol to the Convention (UNHCR,

2002), “aims to take concrete steps to prevent torture in police stations, prisons and other places where people are deprived of their liberty. Any states ratifying the Optional Protocol commit themselves to allowing regular and unannounced inspections of places of detention by international monitors. They also commit themselves to setting up independent national bodies to carry out inspections within their territory.“ According to Amnesty International (2005a) dated June 7, 2005, 37 states have signed the optional protocol, not including the United States of America, Germany, or Turkey, for example. Yet, they state that visits to places of detention are among the most effective means to prevent torture and to improve conditions.

Amnesty International (2005b) uses the term „torture“ to refer to the deliberate infliction of severe pain or suffering by state agents, or similar acts by private individuals for which the state bears responsibility through consent, acquiescence or inaction, as well as to deliberate pain or suffering inflicted by members of armed political groups. Their definition refers to the victims of torture, who are not only political prisoners in the interrogation chamber, police sta-tion, or prison cell, but also can be found in refugee camps, on the streets, and in people’s homes.

Torture is the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering for a specific purpose. The aim of torture is not to kill the victim, but to break down the victim's personality (IRCT, 2005).

It is often used to punish, obtain information or a confession or take revenge on a person or create terror and fear within a population to intimidate opponents of the ruling regime. In this context, torture is only one means of human right violations. Other common instruments are the imprisonment of nonviolent opponents, the conviction of opponents without opportunity of fair trial, secret imprisonments, the application of death penalties, extralegal executions and disappearances.

Methods of physical and psychological torture are remarkably similar. Most techniques seek to prolong the victims' pain and fear for as long as possible without leaving visible evi-dence on their bodies (IRCT, 2005). Some of the most common methods of physical torture include beating, electric shocks, stretching, submersion, suffocation, and burns. Common methods of psychological torture include isolation, blindfolding, threats, humiliation, mock executions, sleep deprivation, and witnessing the torture of others including family members (Basoglu, Paker, Ozmen, Tasdemir, & Sahin, 1994a; Graessner, 2000; Moisander & Edston, 2003). Rape and sexual assault are also a form of torture, and are commonly practiced against both women and men during arrest or imprisonment, or during conflicts and civil war. It is well

documented that in very many cases physicians and other health professionals participated in torture (British Medical Association, 1992; Crelinsten & Schmid, 1995).

Vesti et al. (1992) categorize torture techniques as reported by survivors: deprivation techniques (depriving victims of fundamental bodily needs like sleep, nutrition, hygiene, and health care), coercion techniques (forcing victims to take part in degrading activities, like wit-nessing torture, eating excrements, etc.), communication techniques (verbal abuse, alternating rough/gentle treatment), pharmacological techniques and sexual torture techniques. Basoglu and colleagues (1994a) report for a group of 55 Turkish torture survivors an average of 291 exposures to a mean of 23 different forms of torture during a mean length of imprisonment of 47 months. Victims are being held in a state of helplessness. They are forced to sign prepared statements or to betray other opponents during torture, which is a means to provoke feelings of guilt, shame and fear. Usually giving in does not protect from further torture.

A study by Leth and Banner (2005) found that in 70% of asylum seekers who claim to have been tortured in their country of origin, aftereffects of torture could be documented.

Moisander and Edston (2003) found 75-100% of torture scars in torture victims from six dif-ferent countries. In a study with 72 male torture survivors, 28% were survivors of sexual trauma and had as a consequence urologic and/or sexual dysfunction (Norredam, Crosby, Mu-narriz, Piwowarczyk, & Grodin, 2005). Still, torture methods and with these, aftereffects can differ significantly between countries (Moisander & Edston, 2003), so that profound knowl-edge is needed when examining an asylum seeker with respect to torture. Torture in Turkey, for example, is designed not to leave scars, since lack of injuries is an indication for noncredi-bility (Leth & Banner, 2005). In consequence, the lack of enduring physical scars as well as the lack of medical specialists conversant with the physical sequels of torture, interferes with ef-forts to document the human rights abuses and make it difficult for the victim to prove torture experiences when he applies for asylum in an exile country. Quiroga and Gurr (1998) point out, that the time between the exposure to torture and the medical examination was crucial; the closer the victim is examined to the time of torture, the easier it is to observe any physical signs.

The Amnesty International Report (2005c) with statistics covering January to December 2005 documents cases of torture and ill-treatment by security forces, police, and other state authorities in 149 countries. Reports of torture are more common from regions affected by po-litical unrest, including mass demonstrations, riots, and outbreaks of violence, killings, coup attempts, civil war, rebellions, and conflicts with various opposition groups demanding social

and political reform. Estimates range from 5% to 36% of at least one lifetime torture experi-ence among the worldwide refugee population (Baker, 1992; J.T. de Jong et al., 2001; Frey &

Valach, 1997). However, Gorst-Unsworth and Goldenberg (1998) found a prevalence rate of 65% torture experiences in male Iraqi war refugees and Jaranson and colleagues (2004) found a torture prevalence ranging from 25% to 69% in Somali and Oromo refugees.

Note: “submarino”: i.e. drowning in a vat, often with polluted water; “water treatment”: choking the vic-tim by pouring hot and / or polluted water into the nasal cavities; “telephono”: being boxed hard on both ears si-multaneously; “roller”: rolling a thick wooden log over the front of the legs.