An interview with Dianne Mariano, a human rights activist helping victims of torture, published by the Asian Human Rights Commission
PHILIPPINES: Torture victims speak out–“They are too frightened to file a case” — Interview 4
SPECIAL REPORT
Torture in the Philippines & the unfulfilled promise of the 1987 Constitution
OVERVIEW: In this fourth interview in the series, Dianne Mariano, a Filipino intern of the AHRC from the Philippines shares her thoughts as to why torture victims are not keen on pursuing charges under the Anti-Torture Act of 2009. In terms of legalities, the legal process is very expensive and lengthy. Victims are reluctant to even file complaints of torture for investigation due to trauma and fear of state agents.
Even if they do pursue charges, the availability of lawyers that the victims can trust to represent them is negligible. Not only human rights lawyers handle an enormous amount of cases, they too lack adequate protection from the government as they are subjected to threats and attacks themselves.
Mariano went on to say that apart from prosecution of cases and legal assistance there should also be an effective and adequate system wherein the victims are treated from the trauma they had experience and given counselling for their rehabilitation.
Q: Could you tell us your experience in terms of helping torture victims in seeking legal remedies under the Anti-Torture Act of 2009?
A: On the part of the torture victims I have been helping their sentiments are that, although there is already a law against torture, they do not believe that justice can be done for them. They feel this because they know full well that it would take a very long time to prove a case given the delays in the trial of cases in court.
When you file a case the first thing the court requires is witnesses. For example, in the case of the Morong 43, they were asked: “do you have witnesses?” That is despite the fact that the torture victims knew full well and recognized the police officers who had arrested and tortured them. However, it was their word against that of the officers. And from our experience, pursuing cases in court is a very expensive and long process. That is the common concern of the victims.
Q: Under the law, the victims could also offer expert witness, like medical practitioners and forensic experts (who could testify based on their medical findings) what do you think of this if there is concern in terms of proving torture?
A: On the Morong 43 case, since they were held in detention for one week, hardly any medical findings were available. Well, I know that they have been examined also by the doctors, but I’m not sure if their findings would be sufficient (in terms of how the court appreciates forensic evidence). In terms of medical findings, what is needed is (torture) marks, like bruises or something, but for victims of psychological torture, you can’t find any marks. But torture victims do not bother about this anymore.
Q: Who do you mean is not bothering proofs of “psychological torture” anymore?
A: The victims. They (perhaps never thought of this) let go of this. But for those I have interviewed, none of them have express interest of pursuing charges in court.
Q: If the victims don’t bother about it, how about those helping the victims (lawyers, paralegals and others) since they are the ones who could still think with reason, they are not suffering from trauma like torture victims does.
A: For me, my personal opinion, we can try (pursuing charges in court). We do not lose anything if we just try. But you have to spend a lot of time convincing the torture victims that they must pursue the case to prove that they were indeed tortured. We must do this to tell the government (and its agents) that they cannot do this.
Q: In terms of legal expenses (if there are concerns in pursuing cases in court), the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) has been given a mandate to document at file charges in court on their behalf of the victims, the CHR, to investigate; and public health offices, for medical and psychological examination of the victims. But why do you think the victims are still unwilling to pursue charges in court?
A: As I have said, it is possible that the traumatic experience of the victims had frightened them from pursuing charges. Until they are healed, they are not convinced that they need to pursue charges and be ready for it. I think they will never pursue charges (given this type of condition that they are into).
Q: In terms of ongoing discussion (about the Anti-Torture Act), particularly of the victims and the public being aware about the existence of this law, to what extent the knowledge have been built on this?
A: The victims know that there is already an Anti-Torture Law. But they (victims) are not eager. They are not resolved in their selves that pursuing a case against the state (or its agents) or against the perpetrators probably, as I have said, they are too frightened. It is also possible that they are no longer interested in exhausting efforts and time for that.
Q: Do you mean, from your experience the victims do not see the meaning or need of doing the very first step of pursuing remedy: filing of complaint?
A: Yes, they could not see (or probably they know full well that problem that is why they are no longer pursuing charges) in that way.
Q: What is the usual and immediate response of the victims?
A: (They would say) Not yet. It is pointless. (They would say) Just let others do it, let them do it. They would prefer other torture victims pursuing charges first than them; and to see what would happen.
Q: You mean, even if more and more cases of torture are documented, no need to do (pursue charges) anything?
A: Yes, because for time being they thought it is pointless, at least on the cases that I deal with. Even if the victims file charges, there is also a problem of finding lawyers (whom the victims could trust) to represent their case in court. They (human rights lawyers), too, have a lot of cases (of human rights violations) to deal with.
Anyhow, they (victims, lawyers and human rights defenders) have been studying the provisions of the Anti-Torture Act. They can make use of this in filing charges, but for my part, I do not know from our cases that we handling whether any of them had filed a torture case in court. We have to make use of this law yet.
———————–
The views shared in this interview do not necessarily reflect those of the AHRC, and the AHRC takes no responsibility for them.
