VI. Credibility of Witness Accounts

Human Rights Watch found the above-described accounts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment credible for a number of reasons.

Consistency of Accounts

The consistency of the accounts provided to Human Rights Watch lends them significant credibility. More specifically, those interviewed offered consistent descriptions of a finite set of techniques rather than diverse lists of abusive tactics. As discussed, the individuals we interviewed spoke about being subjected to electro-shock devices, suspension, beatings of the feet, beatings generally, and grave threats to bodily integrity. While many of the former detainees we interviewed reported being subjected to several of these methods, very few said that they had been subjected to all of them.

Moreover, there was a high degree of consistency and specificity with respect to the testimony we heard as to how these techniques were employed. For example, the former detainees who alleged that they had been tortured with electro-shock devices stated that the devices were generally applied for only an instant. The former detainees also offered similar descriptions of the electro-shock devices themselves and the small temporary marks that the devices caused—a result typical of such implements. Further, the few victims who reported being subjected to electro-shock devices for longer than a second stated that they fell down following such applications. These accounts are consistent with the fact that, as discussed, stun guns will incapacitate an individual if applied for three to four seconds—not a desirable result during an interrogation—while shorter applications cause severe localized pain.

Many of those who reported being suspended said that these episodes occurred in a stairwell. Many of these individuals stated that strips of cloth were used to tie their hands together or that blankets were placed on their wrists underneath handcuffs, evidently to prevent visible injuries from being sustained. Additional examples of consistent and detailed testimony regarding various tactics can be found throughout this report.

We recognize, of course, that the individuals interviewed by Human Rights Watch could have colluded to offer false (and similar) accounts of abuse—as Bahraini officials contend—or influenced each other’s accounts by discussing together their time in custody.

However, the former detainees had reported specific details regarding their abuse during their initial interviews with defense counsel at a time when they said they were being held in isolation.[195] Moreover, the reports of abuse given to defense counsel matched those given to Human Rights Watch. For example, Muhsin Ahmad al-Gassab reported to his lawyers that he had been subjected to electric shocks, including on his penis, and used terms to describe his beatings that were quite similar to the terms he used with us. Yassin Ali Ahmad Mushaima reported to his lawyers that he had been subjected to electro-shock devices and beaten with a baton, fists, and feet. Neither reported to his defense counsel that he had been suspended and neither made such a report to us.[196]

The detainees also reported the use of illegal interrogation techniques to the court while still being held in solitary confinement. For example, in a February 23, 2009 court session, the defendants in the Hujaira case testified that they had been subjected to electro-shock devices, beatings, and threats.[197] As noted, it was more than a month later that the court ordered these defendants to be removed from solitary confinement.[198] Beyond counsel meetings and court sessions, the detainees also complained about abuses similar to those they reported to us while being interrogated by prosecutors and examined by doctors, as official documents establish. Finally, it is significant that the former detainees Human Rights Watch interviewed were involved in three distinct cases and said that they did not know many of the other former detainees.

Further bolstering the general credibility of those we interviewed is the fact that the former detainees described in consistent terms various deceptive interrogation techniques that were not necessarily abusive. For example, many individuals stated that officers showed them photographs of demonstrations and asserted that they were identifiable in the photographs regardless of whether they bore any resemblance to those pictured. In many instances, officers told those being interrogated that their friends had implicated them in allegedly criminal activity. In other instances, security forces brought detainees together and made one (usually blindfolded) implicate another in a particular crime without knowing that the implicated person was present. There would be little reason to coordinate testimony regarding non-abusive techniques as part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories of torture. As such, the former detainees’ accounts of these techniques are instructive with respect to their reliability in general.

In addition, the individuals Human Rights Watch interviewed offered consistent testimony regarding less dramatic aspects of their detentions that were not necessarily related to interrogation. For example, nearly all those interviewed stated that security forces pulled their shirts over their heads while they were being driven to government compounds after arrest. Nearly all described having their heads pushed down in the cars that took them to security compounds upon arrest so as to keep them out of sight. It is unlikely that these smaller details would be the subject of a conspiratorial agreement because they are not crucial in and of themselves.

Finally, Human Rights Watch conducted intensive separate interviews with 20 individuals that typically lasted several hours. No material inconsistencies emerged; rather, the descriptions of abuse that we heard were marked by substantial similarities as to the techniques employed and the manner in which those techniques were employed.

Declining to Exaggerate or Embellish Testimony

No detainee interviewed by Human Rights Watch stated that abuse continued unabated throughout his entire period of detention. Rather, the former detainees typically said that they were subjected to abusive tactics for particular periods of time, which ranged from a few days or weeks (most commonly) to a month or more (more unusually). They most frequently reported that abuses occurred during periods of active interrogation rather than as a condition of detention generally. Furthermore, those interviewed did not take advantage of leading questions—intentionally asked—to assert that they had been subjected to abusive techniques beyond those they described or for periods longer than they specified.

An example of this dynamic was the interview of Abdullah Muhsin Abdullah Muhsin. According to Muhsin—who is quite overweight—guards took him to a stairwell in the CID compound where they made him stand on a chair and tied his wrists together with fabric. One end of a rope was then attached to the fabric and the other end was attached to the stairwell. After a guard kicked away the chair on which Muhsin stood, the rope snapped under the pressure of Muhsin’s weight, and Muhsin fell a short distance to the ground, unhurt. Guards attempted this maneuver a second time with the same result, at which point, according to Muhsin, someone said, “That’s enough.” In response to repeated questions, Muhsin reported that he was not subjected to any further abuse during his eight months’ detention; eventually the court acquitted Muhsin.[199] Muhsin’s testimony could hardly be characterized as embellished. Rather, it is credible and also bolsters the accounts of others who described being suspended in a stairwell in a similar fashion.

Likewise, Ahmad Jaffer Muhammad reported that a supervisory officer threatened to apply a black electrical device that looked like an electric shaver to him if he did not confess. According to Muhammad, the officer did not turn the device on or ultimately apply it to him.[200] Similarly, another former detainee, who requested not to be identified, told Human Rights Watch that during an interrogation session he heard the sound of an electric device being turned on. He said that after he told the guards he suffered from a chronic health condition, he was not subjected to the device or other abuse.[201] Someone who wished to mislead an investigator regarding the use of electro-shock devices would not offer an account that omits any mention of the use of such devices. As such, these testimonies are credible and corroborate those of other individuals regarding the presence (and type) of electro-shock devices at various security compounds.

Moreover, those interviewed by Human Rights Watch candidly admitted when certain information was beyond their knowledge. For example, these individuals stated that they did not know who had utilized certain techniques against them when, for example, they had been blindfolded or simply had not known the identity of a perpetrator. In other instances, the former detainees openly said that they could not estimate the length of time during which certain techniques were employed or the locations in which such techniques were used. That an individual declines to fabricate testimony under such circumstances enhances his credibility.

Documentary Evidence, including Medical Reports

Ultimately, the documentary evidence Human Rights Watch reviewed, that is, reports generated by government doctors, prosecutors and the security services as well as court papers, provided the strongest corroboration of the former detainees’ accounts. Government doctors—primarily from the Ministry of Health—reported in many cases that the detainees they examined bore injuries that could have been caused by the abusive techniques described here. In most instances, the doctors stated that they could not conclusively determine the causes of the relevant injuries because those injuries had been sustained months earlier. Nonetheless, the fact that government doctors concluded that numerous detainees suffered from injuries that could have been caused by the practices of which the detainees complained is quite significant.[202]

For example, Ministry of Health doctors testified in court regarding the results of their examinations of defendants in the Jidhafs case. The doctors had found “rings” or scars around the wrists of certain defendants, which they believed resulted from the tightening of an item around the wrists (not handcuffs used in the normal course of detention or restraint). The doctors also found irregularities in the shoulders and clavicle joints of certain defendants. According to the doctors, it was “probable” that these defendants had been “suspended from the ceiling.” The doctors, when asked how they explained the “pains, burns and scars in the same places over all the suspects’ bodies,” testified that the cause could be “their exposure to hanging, beating, torture or handcuffs.”[203]

Ministry of Health doctors also prepared a report regarding 28 suspects in the Karzakan case. The doctors found that 17 of these suspects had scars, bruises, or both. Moreover, five of the suspects had scars or bruises on their wrists that, according to the doctors, were caused by “handcuffing this area or being hung from the ceiling as most suspects testify.” The doctors further concluded that the other scars and bruises could have “resulted from beating.”[204]

Most significantly, in October 2009, the court in a proceeding that was part of the Karzakan case dismissed all charges against all defendants, in part based upon the doctors’ report. More specifically, the prosecution had argued that 18 of the 19 defendants confessed to attacking a police car (thereby leading to the death of an officer). Notably, Captain Fahd Fadalah of the CID, one of the officers named by a number of the detainees Human Rights Watch interviewed, testified that these defendants had confessed.

The court, however, wrote that it saw “the statements of the defendants and their confessions at the prosecution office [as being] taken by semi-coercion” in that the defendants “said they were physically coerced and intimidated during criminal investigations ... if they didn’t confess....” Further, the court stated that it “found it to be true that the medical committee ... found that [the defendants] have bruises on their wrists which the defendants said are because of hanging from the ceiling, beside that the report of the committee found the presence of bruises and traces of wounds....” Because the court “[was] not comfortable with the confessions attributed to the defendants, and [had] doubts that the confessions were voluntary and by their choosing,” the court elected to “annul all confessions.”[205]

Beyond the reports regarding groups of defendants discussed in this section, Bahraini government doctors also issued reports regarding many individual detainees which found that those detainees had injuries consistent with their accounts of abuse, as discussed above.

Human Rights Watch also interviewed attorneys who had been counsel to certain of the defendants in the Jidhafs case, the Hujaira case, and/or the Karzakan case. These counsel reported observing various signs of physical abuse on their clients such as bruises and cuts during their initial attorney-client meetings.[206] While not documentary evidence, these reports were telling as well.

In sum, doctors employed by the Bahraini government found numerous detainees to have injuries consistent with the detainees’ allegations of abuse. These findings constitute highly significant—and somewhat unusual—corroboration of the accounts that the former detainees provided to Human Rights Watch. Indeed, given the prevalence of the injuries reported by the doctors—for example, 17 of 28 defendants in the Karzakan case were found to have bruises or scars—it would be difficult to reach any conclusion other than that the detainees had been subjected to abuses of the sort reported.[207] In fact, this is precisely the conclusion reached by a Bahraini court in the Karzakan case.