Compliance and credibility: a critique of the sexual assault forensic examination from international perspectives

The forensic medical examination is often lauded as an effective intervention to reduce case attrition by providing evidence that supports a rape or sexual assault complaint. We show that, despite nearly universal enthusiasm for such programmes, the examination also serves as an extra-legal opportunity for criminal justice and medical personnel to assess the credibility of rape and sexual assault complainants. Drawing on five case studies from three countries, we investigate the medico-legal exam as a complicated process that helps shape case outcomes often in ways unanticipated by proponents of forensic medical examinations. We argue that through co-optation of language about choice, consent, and empowerment, and despite significant variation in procedures, protocols, and legal rules, personnel involved with the medico-legal process often use it to impose formal and informal ‘tests’ for assessing complainant credibility and to dismiss or cast doubt upon some rape and sexual assault reports.