TY - JOUR

T1 - Cruelty and corpo-reality

T2 - Connecting technologies and practices integral to torture’s infliction and investigation

AU - Cakal, Ergun

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Torture has a complex relationship with technology. Technology variably facilitates or hinders modes of inflicting and investigating torture. Torture itself remains a technology for producing proof, simultaneously primitive and sophisticated. Torture techniques and practices evolve and travel, are prevalent in both democratic and autocratic states, and are often accompanied by a pseudo-scientific rhetoric of ‘controlled’ pain. Conversely, juridical processes pursuing accountability for torture also focus their evaluative gaze on the tortured body and to scientific expertise. To this end, sustained transnational efforts have culminated in the crafting of evidentiary technologies to document torture as grounded in state-of-the-art medical and psychological knowledge. What is more, despite this demand and supply, the utility of this ‘technology of knowledge’ remains unfulfilled in practice for different reasons. I start with the dialectic interplay between infliction and investigation produced by these practices—with prevalent methods informing documentation practices, and with those responsible for infliction adjusting their practices accordingly to evade accountability. With the long-anticipated revised version of the UN Istanbul Protocol now at hand, I revisit the origins and promises undergirding these efforts and their implications for anti-torture practice. I conclude with a critical reflection on the contested dynamics of knowledge imbued in these practices—asking how we (and the law) can ever adequately know about the tortured body.

AB - Torture has a complex relationship with technology. Technology variably facilitates or hinders modes of inflicting and investigating torture. Torture itself remains a technology for producing proof, simultaneously primitive and sophisticated. Torture techniques and practices evolve and travel, are prevalent in both democratic and autocratic states, and are often accompanied by a pseudo-scientific rhetoric of ‘controlled’ pain. Conversely, juridical processes pursuing accountability for torture also focus their evaluative gaze on the tortured body and to scientific expertise. To this end, sustained transnational efforts have culminated in the crafting of evidentiary technologies to document torture as grounded in state-of-the-art medical and psychological knowledge. What is more, despite this demand and supply, the utility of this ‘technology of knowledge’ remains unfulfilled in practice for different reasons. I start with the dialectic interplay between infliction and investigation produced by these practices—with prevalent methods informing documentation practices, and with those responsible for infliction adjusting their practices accordingly to evade accountability. With the long-anticipated revised version of the UN Istanbul Protocol now at hand, I revisit the origins and promises undergirding these efforts and their implications for anti-torture practice. I conclude with a critical reflection on the contested dynamics of knowledge imbued in these practices—asking how we (and the law) can ever adequately know about the tortured body.

U2 - 10.1093/jhuman/huac045

DO - 10.1093/jhuman/huac045

M3 - Journal article

SP - 1

EP - 17

JO - Journal of Human Rights Practice

JF - Journal of Human Rights Practice

SN - 1757-9619

M1 - huac045

ER -