confession-oriented interrogation techniques and torture are only different means to the same end, administrated by the police to confirm their belief of guilt. Although manipulative confession-oriented techniques are less brutal than torture, the mindset of interrogating detectives is none the less the same: the police are trying to solve their (sometimes complex) tasks with a methodology designed to confirm their presumption of guilt. 49. Police engage in such thinking because they believe it is the right thing to do. Not only because our inherited and dominant thinking style forces us to believe that searching for confirmative information is the smartest way of solving problems,32 but also because the systems in which the agents are operating put a premium on confessions. The human tendency (cognitive predisposition) to seek confirmation and criminal justice systems that are encouraging their agents to do so are a perilous mixture, leading to wrongful convictions33 and planting the seeds of torture.34 Dismantling the myth 50. In line with Méndez’ initiative for global guidelines to prevent harsh interrogations, it is essential to address the widespread myth that torture and other coercive interrogation tactics represent an efficient way of eliciting information and solving crime.35 One may argue that the introduction of subtler, manipulative confession-oriented interrogation techniques into the torture-prevention framework only dodges the problem and diverts much needed focus. 51. However, if the Council of Europe were to address the dominant “crime fighting” argument for traditional interrogation techniques by unveiling the myth of their effectiveness, Europe would be in a unique position to introduce a sustainable framework, which could benefit all States pursuing a more effective and professional police force, including those in which torture no longer constitutes a serious threat. 52. Judges and prosecutors who are tacitly accepting that their police torture, coerce or manipulate their suspects, do so because they believe in the myth of the effectiveness of such practices. There are many reasons why actors within the criminal justice system believe in this myth. Their lack of relevant, scientific knowledge is arguably a dominant factor. Police and members of the judiciary receive limited (or no) training in interpersonal communication theories, explaining why ethical and empathic communication facilitates the flow of reliable information;36 or information about the fact that memory is positively stimulated under these conditions.37 They equally do not receive enough training to fully understand the impact coercion, manipulation, and even leading questions may have on the reliability of information gathered during traditional 32 Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011; Ivar Fahsing and Karl Ask, “The Making of an Expert Detective: The Role of Experience in English and Norwegian Officers’ Investigative Decision Making. Psychology Crime and Law”, 2015, 22 (3), pp. 203-223. 33 Richard A. Leo, Police Interrogation and American Justice, Harvard University Press, 2008. 34 Darius Rejali, Torture and Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2007. 35 Fred E. Inbau et al., Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 4th edition, Aspen Publishers, 2001; 36 Laurence J. Alison et al., “Why Tough Tactics Fail and Rapport Gets Results: Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to Generate Useful Information From Terrorists”, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2013 (19), pp. 411–431. 37 Shane O’Mara, Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation, Harvard University Press, 2015. 15