person in one room with the suspect can not only help to prevent torture, but also detect and stop ongoing ill-treatment that may take place outside of the interview room. For this reason, remote legal assistance is less effective than a lawyer’s presence in-person (Fair Trials, Beyond the Emergency of COVID-19 pandemic: lessons for defence, 2020, p. 27), where it is easier to detect any visible signs of torture. Secondly, law-enforcement officers need to be trained on the inherent unreliability of statements made under coercion that undermine the main objective of a criminal investigation – truth finding. Law enforcement officers also need to be more knowledgeable on the benefits of using appropriate interviewing techniques in accordance with international standards (e.g. the Mendez Principles, Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering, 2021). Thirdly, an important additional safeguard is mandatory video and audio recording of suspect interviews (Fair Trials and REDRESS, op. cit. , p. 49). It is important to stress however that, contrary to what appears to be the suggestion of the European Court of Human Rights in Doyle v. Ireland (ECtHR, Doyle v. Ireland, App. No. 51979/17, 23 May 2019, § 99), video recording of the suspect interview cannot replace the presence of a lawyer. A video recording does not record what happens before or after the interview, nor is it manipulation-proof. Video recordings can be manipulated, for example, by presenting only excerpts of the recording in trial (as was the case in Doyle) or strategic placement of the camera to reflect only part of the goings on in the interview room. Fourthly, detention is a well-known contributing factor to increased risk of coercion on the suspect. Therefore systemic solutions aimed at reducing overreliance and abusive use of pre-trial detention would also reduce the occurrence of torture. It is key that pre-trial detention hearings are conducted in-person. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture or Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has stressed that “All persons detained by the police whom it is proposed to remand to prison should be physically brought before the judge who must decide that issue. Bringing the person before the judge will provide a timely opportunity for a criminal suspect who has been ill-treated to lodge a complaint. Further, even in the absence of an express complaint, the judge will be able to take action in good time if there are other indications of ill-treatment (e.g. visible injuries; a person's general appearance or demeanour)” (CPT, 12th General Report, CPT/Inf(2002)15-part, § 45). And finally, the effort to conclude criminal investigations ‘quickly and efficiently’ by resorting to coercive investigation methods can be a symptom of overburdened justice systems. The inability to cope with heavy caseload may push law-enforcement officers to look for ways to close cases quickly or to produce more “results”. For this reason, an increasing number of cases are resolved without a full trial, through confessions or plea bargains. In many such trial waiver procedures, the suspect needs to confess. In such cases, the need to obtain a confession is a major incentive for use of torture or other forms of ill-treatment. Decriminalisation and redistribution of resources to help justice systems deal with the existing caseload and thus reducing reliance on confession in criminal prosecutions has the potential to address a major driver of torture (Fair Trials and REDRESS, op. cit., p. 60). Effective exclusion Dealing with torture evidence in the trial stage of criminal proceedings can be difficult. As mentioned above, the scope and application of the exclusionary rule, even where a clear rule exists in 20