Impact of (forensic) expert opinions according to the Istanbul Protocol in Germany—results and insights of the in:Fo-project

As part of a third-party funded project, expert opinions according to the Istanbul Protocol (IP) standards were compiled in Germany on a larger scale for the first time. The assessment process was initiated for 130 project participants. Statistical analysis on numerous variables was performed to test the impact of the expert opinions, foremost of the forensic medical expert opinions, on the individuals’ asylum proceedings. The variables were drawn from forensic medical expert opinions and reports of findings, questionnaires for the study participants’ counsellors in the project and a query on the asylum status of the study participants. Regression analysis and bivariate analysis on two dependent variables—subjective impact on the asylum procedure from the counsellors’ point of view and objective change in the asylum status—were performed to test for an influence on asylum procedures. No statistically significant results were obtained for the objective change of the study participants’ asylum status. For the subjective dependent variable, a positive prediction was possible when simultaneously controlling for the independent variables introduction of a forensic medical expert opinion and highest IP grade; a negative prediction was possible when simultaneously controlling for the independent variables introduction of a forensic medical expert opinion and use of IP grading. Apart from the statistical analysis, a positive effect of the assessment on the psychosocial well-being of the study participants could be demonstrated. The results differed from other European studies which demonstrated a correlation between the objective outcome of an asylum procedure (asylum status) and, for example, specific types of violence or the number of documented injuries. Differences also occurred in the use of the plausibility grades proposed by the IP, which questions their use in cases in which the reported torture happened a relevant time ago. Therefore, compiling individually worded evaluations instead of using the IP grading system—if possible, by an experienced forensic physician—is recommended in this scenario. Still, the assessment of alleged torture experiences should follow the IP guidelines, since psychological assessments are of especially high importance in cases with healed physical injuries and since the results also demonstrated a positive effect on the psychosocial well-being of the study participants.