Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: International review, comparison, and analysis of child-friendly justice practices in various jurisdictions.
“Please leave me alone. Don’t ask me any more questions about this. I want to forget.”This is the testimony of an 8-year-old girl that is registered in one of the cases at the Child and AdolescentProtection Police of Goiânia, which is the capital of the state of Goiás, in Brazil, analyzedby the research team of the project Reversing the route: actions to combat the sexual exploitationof children and adolescents in Goiás, of the Universidade Católica de Goiás. Testimonies like thisecho in hundreds of other voices. The discomfort and psychological stress that child and adolescent victims of sexual violencesuffer when providing evidence in the current justice system, to a great extent the result ofintertwined complex feelings, often contradictory, of fear, embarrassment, anger, pain, and resentment,largely originates from the adult-centric and formalist culture that permeates the traditionaljudicial practices. This discomfort is in turn based on the difficulty that children and adolescentsexperience in providing and defending their testimony during the investigative and trial phases.The difficulty in obtaining consistent evidence partly explains the low conviction rates for sexualviolence against children and adolescents. Therefore, the discomfort, the psychological stress, andthe fear that children and adolescents feel on providing testimony in court cases are connectedto impunity. It is also worth remembering that the protection of children and adolescents againstsuffering during the justice process is a right guaranteed by the international rule approved by theUnited Nations on the questioning of child and adolescent victims and witnesses of violence (EcosocResolution 2005/20). All these facts together led the researcher Professor Dr. Benedito Rodrigues dos Santosto prepare, in 2007, in a partnership with Childhood Brasil, the project Non-revictimizing culturesand practices: Reflection and socialization of alternative methodologies to question children andadolescents in court cases, whose general goal, already expressed in the title, is to “systematizeand socialize alternative methodologies to question children and adolescents in court cases”. Itslong-term goals are to reduce the revictimization of children and adolescents in the justice processand stimulate the creation of rules, public policies, and social practices that can break the cycle ofviolence perpetrated against children and adolescents. To achieve these objectives the following measures were planned: mapping the experiences of specialists and academics with alternativepractices for taking special testimony, in national (Brazil) and international spheres, as well as the existing literature on the theme andsites that may facilitate the Internet research for those who wish to go deeper into the taking of testimony from children and adolescents inthe justice process; promoting exchange visits from representatives of the project’s partner organizations and the research team to know thepioneering experiences that are a reference in national (Brazil) and international spheres; holding the I International Symposium on the Takingof Special Testimony from Children and Adolescents in the Justice Process; documenting all the actions taken with this project through publicationsprepared by an academic documentation and research team; and producing support to train agents using the results of this projectpublished in books and teaching material and recorded in videos. The project has been implemented since 2008 and this publication socializes its first results, which represent the efforts to map theproduction of knowledge and the programs to serve as an instrument for those who may want, either due to academic reasons or to producepublic social policies, to study the subject more deeply. This book has taken the format of a map in the sense attributed to it by the UnitedNations, as being a set of studies and scientific, technical, and artistic operations used in the preparation of maps, charts, and other formsof expression or representation. Nevertheless, a better definition for this publication would be a “first draft” of a map showing alternativeprograms to take special testimony from children and adolescents in the justice process, since its authors do not propose to detail the essenceof each of the topics mapped out, but offer a locator of people, programs, and documental productions that are contributing to new socialcultures and practices. The first section of this book, the article Child victims in the judiciary system: optimizing accuracy, avoiding revictimization,is devoted to a brief review of the literature aiming at mapping out the production of academic knowledge on the subject. However,this review was written taking into consideration the goal of this book, which is to support the formulation of social policies and practices fortaking testimony from child and adolescent victims or witnesses of sexual violence. Therefore, it is far removed from the classical examinationmodels, more reflexive and analytical, related to the subject, and it focuses on two axes: on the one hand, the revictimization caused by thetraditional investigative processes, and on the other hand, a survey on the use of alternative methodologies to take testimony from childrenand adolescents. One of the most highly renowned and specialized personalities on this subject, Professor Dr. Gail Goodman, of the University ofCalifornia in Davis, was invited to carry out this task. The scientific production of this honorable professor is a mandatory reading for anyonewho is researching this theme. The depth of her work can be corroborated by the text in this section and the volume of her production canbe confirmed by all the titles listed in the literature consulted for this publication. Professor Goodman gives territorial and empirical basis to her work when she reports the experience of the Child Advocacy Centers (CACs), American non-governmental organizations (NGOs) thatdevelop a variety of programs to support child and adolescent victims or witnesses of violence who need to provide testimony in court.Her two main arguments are: (a) contrary to what many people think, the recording of testimony for use as evidence in the justice processmay reach the same degrees of trustworthiness as testimony given live at police stations and courts; (b) both scientific research and socialpractice confirm that these alternative methods for the taking of testimony minimize the levels of children and adolescents revictimizationduring the justice process. The second section of this publication, Catalog of alternative experiences for taking special testimony from children andadolescents around the world: Socio-anthropological reading and summary chart, maps the alternative experiences for taking specialtestimony from children and adolescents around the world. More than merely its geography, we also present its main constitutive characteristics,such as its name in the original language, date of implementation, its legal basis, the type of physical environment and methodologyused for the taking of testimony, the types of professionals who carry out the forensic interview, the number of times the child/adolescenttestifies, and the criteria to validate the special testimony as evidence in the justice process. This section demanded significant effort from all of the team and the methodology was built up throughout the research processitself. We used the method called “snow ball”, which consists in making a first selection referenced in the literature and expertise of researchers,academics, and professionals with a recognized experience on the subject and, using these indications, finding new references. It isworth highlighting that this methodological option, considered more appropriate for our project, does not allow us to generalize the resultspresented herein to apply to the universe of the existing countries, because our objective is to map paradigmatic cultures and practices fortaking special testimony from child and adolescent victims of sexual violence in the justice system. The number of experiences found far exceeded our initial estimates. While we hoped to find around six to eight programs, wedocumented the existence of 28 and we were informed that many more are in the process of implementation. Nonetheless, we only documentedthose that are already in operation. Based on these catalog cards, attached to this publication, we prepared a summary chart containingthe main characteristics as well as a socio-anthropological analysis, both presented in the body of the second section of this book. Anticipating the content that will be presented in the second section, we conclude that the most relevant numbers of experiencesare found in Europe (36%), South America (25%), and Asia (14%). Within this universe, there is a clear predominance of two models thatare being implemented in several countries around the world: one following the line of the English law, massively using closed-circuit television(CCTV) for taking video recorded testimony (61%); and the other following the American model, using a room with two-way mirrors(39%). The difference between these two models is expressed in the laws that provide the legal basis for taking special testimony. CCTV is the most used system and avoids contact between children/adolescents with the public in the court houses. This contributesto resolving the difficulties these individuals have in testifying in an open court room. In this modality for the taking of testimony, the children/adolescents, as witnesses or victims, may have the benefit of having a person present to accompany them while providing their testimonythrough the use of CCTV or behind the screen. A room with a two-way mirror is a device created by the American psychologist Arnold Gesell (1880-1961) to study child developmentstages. It is made up of two rooms divided by a two-way mirror that allows people to see what is happening on one side, but not the otherway around. The room with a two-way mirror has been constitutionally recognized for the taking of testimony from child/adolescent victimsor witnesses of sexual violence. In a room prepared in this manner, children and adolescents are listened to by the court authorities, usingspecialized hearing, carried out only by a psychologist. During the taking of testimony, this professional’s attention is directed at obtaining atrustworthy account that may be accepted as credible in order to constitute witness evidence in the proceedings. Thus, it is very important tohave electronic equipment, such as video and audio recorder, television, remote control panel, digital CD, VHS, and audio cassette mixing deskto register image and sound, cabling, manual zoom control, air conditioning system to guarantee the performance of the electronic equipment,and qualified technical support to use the equipment. In 46% of the selected countries these special rooms for the taking of testimony are located at police stations and at courthouses,the remainder being spread among the prosecutors’ offices, executive branches, and even NGOs. In 35% of the experiences, the police hearthe child/adolescent at the first instance and posteriorly, the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney hear him or her if the case goes to trialand a new testimony is considered necessary. Following the police officers, the psychologists are the professionals that most often take part incognitive interviews for the production of evidence in the justice system. In the third section, called Report on reference experiences: England and Argentina, we highlight two experiences that constituteparadigmatic matrixes and have been disseminated in an adapted manner to many other countries. First, the English experience, which notonly inspires many other English-speaking countries and some nations in Asia, but also strongly influenced the Cuban experience. Second, theArgentine experience, which has been serving as a base for the implementation of similar projects in many Spanish-speaking countries in LatinAmerica as well as in Brazil. In the fourth section, called Source guide: Specialists and researchers, we mapped the specialists who are most often quoted byresearchers with whom we have had contact and also cited in publications considered as references in this field. Information gathering was carriedout using a catalog-card containing the following categories: name of specialist/researcher, expertise, main publications, and contacts. Wenoted that the highest number of specialists on the subject is in the United States (37%), Argentina (13.5%), Brazil (13.5%) and England (13.5%). The fifth section, Source guide: Publications and analysis of titles, maps Brazilian and international literature on the subject.The drawing up of the collected titles was organized in the following categories: social victimization of children and adolescents and institutionalrevictimization; victimization of children and adolescents from the perspective of justice; testimony from children and adolescentsvictims of sexual violence in court cases; forensic practice in the development of listening techniques and expert investigation technologies;forensic method applied by psychologists in listening to children and adolescents; discussion concerning child/adolescent memories and factorsthat influence false and/or hidden and suggestible memories; validation of the testimony from children and adolescents about sexualviolence (abuse and sexual exploitation); and the main Brazilian and international legal basis for the defense and guarantee of the rights ofchildren and adolescents, regulatory law bodies for subjects that involve child and adolescent victims and witnesses of crimes, such as the InternationalConvention on the Rights of the Child and the Guidelines on Justice in Matters Involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crimesof the United Nations Economic and Social Council. We found 226 titles, of which 76% written in English, and the production of knowledge in this language is split between the UnitedStates (55%) and England (17%), even though the second country is far from the first. The remaining titles are divided between the productionin Spanish, with a large incidence in Spain and Argentina, and the production in Portuguese, with the predominance of Brazil. The sixth and final section, Source guide: Pages of interest on the Internet, maps the principal electronic addresses in whichreaders, researchers, social policy makers, and operators of the system that guarantees the rights may find information directly related to thesubject of the taking of special testimony from children and adolescents in the justice system. This section offers instructions on how tooperate sites in 28 countries, the largest number of which is cited for England followed by Argentina. However, it is woth emphasizing thatthe highest number of sites on this theme can still be found in the United States due to its pioneering efforts to implement this practice. Our surprise to find a higher number of alternative experiences for taking testimony from children/adolescents in the justice system,experts in this subject, and documentary sources regarding this theme than our initial forecasts is the cause for hope and an indicator of a newpractice that has been emerging in several countries around the world. However, like all innovative practices, the taking of special testimonyfrom children and adolescents faces enormous challenges to be legitimated by society as a whole and to be transformed into a universal socialpractice. Unfortunately, the conventional practices of taking testimony are still widespread in a large contingent of police institutions andjustice systems in several parts of the world. Among the challenges is the internal expansion of the experiences for taking special testimony from children and adolescents in thecountries where they have already been implemented. Even in countries where these methodologies have been used for more than a decade,such as Argentina and England, this practice is still restricted to only a few of their geographical areas, mostly in the capital cities and/or in theregions where they were first implemented. Nevertheless, the most recalcitrant challenges are: first, in those countries where the methodology was implemented in the courtsof justice that it may also be used in the early production of evidence during the investigative phase; second, for all the countries, whether itwas implemented in the police or court phase, that the methodology be validated as sufficient material evidence and eliminates the need forlive testimony from children and adolescents in other phases of the justice process. Only daily reflection and training of the operators of thesystems for the guarantee of rights, accompanied by the demonstration of the efficacy of these new experiences may change the culture ofconventional, secular practices of the judicial system. One final challenge is the registration, documentation, monitoring, and evaluation of these new practices for taking special testimonyfrom children and adolescents. Even considering those countries where this methodology is already implemented and consolidated, this challengeis still present because there is very little statistical data available on the testimony taken in these special rooms. There are few reports ofthe experiences beyond the information that is available on the Internet. While knowing that evaluations that are more or less systematic arecarried out, we found almost no documents or articles reflecting possible evaluations of the process, product, and impact of these experiences.