From interrogation to investigative interviewing - a change of mindset29 Introduction 44. The safeguards discussed above are so important that we cannot ignore any of them. However, from a torture-prevention perspective, these (and other) safeguards are nonetheless complementary measures: The most important safeguard against torture and other ill-treatment is indeed the methodology employed by the police during arrest, detention and questioning of suspects. 45. The second part of this paper will highlight one of the most precarious undertakings in the criminal justice process: the pre-trial questioning of criminal suspects. There are - in addition to the disturbing CPT reports highlighted above – imperative reasons to take a closer look at police questioning. First of all, conducting interviews of victims, witnesses and suspects is a core task of law enforcement. Information obtained from these interpersonal encounters between the power and the people typically forms the basis for subsequent decisions by the police, prosecutors and judges. Consequently, how the police behave and conduct their interviews will have a profound impact on the outcome, fairness, efficiency and reliability of any subsequent criminal proceedings, and ultimately, how citizens perceive the fairness of the criminal justice system. 46. In the early 1990s, a complete overhaul of the judicial system was initiated in the United Kingdom. The police were requested nothing less than altering their mindset and completely changing their procedures when questioning suspects of crime: from a heuristic, interrogative practice aimed at getting the suspect to confess (interrogations) to an evidence-based approach, designed to gather and test accurate and reliable information (investigative interviewing). 47. Although the development from interrogation to investigative interviewing has influenced police training outside the UK and was extended to various regions of the world, the vast majority of police forces still have not committed themselves to the fundamental principles and ethos underpinning the concept of investigative interviewing.30 In his last report as UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Méndez urged the United Nations to develop global standards for police questioning, endorsing investigative interviewing as best practice. Investigative interviewing was chosen because scholars and practitioners from different corners of the world advised the Special Rapporteur that rapport-based interviewing represents the safest and most efficient approach to solve crime and counter terrorism.31 The underlying problem 48. In order to prevent torture and other coercive interrogation tactics, legislators and policy decision makers should reflect on the fact that coercive or manipulative It is important to address the distinction between the terms interrogation and investigative interviewing. The historic literature around interrogation refers to a heuristic approach, including coercive and/or manipulative techniques, designed to obtain a confession. Investigative interviewing - as defined by the UK Home Office in 1992, developed and refined by pioneering scholars in close cooperation with the police - is an evidence based approach, designed to gather and test accurate and reliable information from victims, witnesses and suspects of crime. See Thomas M. Williamson, “From interrogation to investigative interviewing: strategic problems in police questioning”, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 1993 (3), pp. 89-99. 30 David Walsh et al. (eds.), International Developments and Practices in Investigative Interviewing and Interrogation, Volume 2: Suspects, Routledge Frontiers of Criminal Justice, 2015. 31 United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, interim report, fn. 13. 29 14