International and European standards From an international human rights perspective, the use of AVR in police interviews is best practice.11 At an international level, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in 2016 found that the “recording of interviews is a fundamental safeguard against torture, ill-treatment and coercion and ought to apply in the criminal justice system and in connection to any form of detention. Every reasonable effort must be made to record interviews, by audio or video, in their entirety.”12 The UN Special Rapporteur in a 2002 report found that “[e]vidence from non-recorded interrogations should be excluded from court proceedings”.13 The new international Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering (the “Principles”), released in May 2021,14 aim to change how public authorities conduct interviews and as a result improve trust in States’ interview processes. They provide guidance for interviewers to obtain reliable information in full respect of human rights and procedural safeguards and, in that regard, recommends the AVR of the entire interview.15 The United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT) recommends AVR as an effective method of prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment.16 The Committee consistently recommends that States should make AVR an obligatory, standard, and systematic procedure,17 and provide the necessary resources for same.18 The CAT recommends that AVR be used in all interviews, regardless of the type of crime.19 Finally, the CAT recommends that the footage be kept in secure facilities for a period sufficient for it to be used as evidence, and made available20 to all competent judicial authorities, to detainees, their lawyers and family members,21 and others as appropriate.22 The recommendation of making AVR mandatory is also one adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee.23 11. See for example the Directive on procedural safeguards for children that proscribes AVR for childrens’ interviews; European Commission, ‘Commission recommendation of 27 November 2013 on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings’, (2013/C 378/02) <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013H1224(02)&from=EN#:~:text=The%20aim%20 of%20this%20Recommendation,(‘vulnerable%20persons’)>. This prescribed that questioning of adults in vulnerable situations at the pre-trial investigation phase should be audio-visually recorded (point 13); Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering, May 2021, § 99 <https://www.apt.ch/sites/default/files/inline-files/apt_PoEI_EN_08.pdf>. 12. SRT (Mendez) A/71/298, § 84. 13. SRT (van Boven) ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 2002/38’ (2002) E/CN.4/2003/68, § 26(g). See also SRT (Rodley) ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ (2001) A/56/156, § 34. 14. Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering, May 2021, <https://interviewingprinciples.com>. 15. ibid, §§ 99 and 176. 16. CAT, ‘General Comment No 2 on the Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties’ (2008) UN Doc CAT/ C/ GC/ 2, §§ 13-14. 17. CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Macedonia’ (2022) UN Doc CAT/ C/MNE/CO/3, § 19(g) “Ensure the systematic video recording of the questioning of suspects in custody, and establish mandatory instructions for the storage of recordings, including a prescribed minimum duration.”; CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: China’ (2016) UN Doc CAT/ C/ CHN/ CO/ 5, § 34; CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Liechtenstein’ (2016) UN Doc CAT/ C/ LIE/ CO/ 4, § 12. 18. CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Qatar’ (2013) UN Doc CAT/ C/ QAT/ CO/ 2, § 10; CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Armenia’ (2017) CAT/ C/ ARM/ CO/ 4, § 12. 19. CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: France’ (2010) UN Doc CAT/ C/ FRA/ CO/ 4- 6, §16. 20. CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Honduras’ (2016) UN Doc CAT/ C/ HND/ CO/ 2, § 12. 21.CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Spain’ (2015) UN Doc CAT/ C/ ESP/ CO/ 6, § 11; CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Jordan’ (2016) UN Doc CAT/ C/ JOR/ CO/ 3, § 24; CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Armenia’ (2016) UN Doc CAT/ C/ ARM/ CO/ 4, § 12. 22. CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Kyrgyzstan’ (2013) UN Doc CAT/ C/ KGZ/ CO/ 2, §9. 23. UN Human Rights Committee, ‘List of issues prior to submission of the seventh periodic report of Japan’ (2017) UN Doc CCPR/C/JPN/ QPR/7, § 12. 10 At a regional level, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has, on a number of occasions, stressed the importance of AVRs in ensuring the protection of detainees. In its General Report in 1992, the CPT noted that AVRs of police interviews are a “useful safeguard” for both detainees and the police.24 In a further report in 2002, the CPT again noted the many benefits.25 The European Court of Human Rights has found in one case that AVR is “an important safeguard as it doubtless acted to maintain pressure on the police to act in conformity with the law. It also enabled the domestic courts to make well informed decisions when considering whether it was possible to admit the evidence obtained in police interview.”26 At an EU level, AVRs are only mandated when interviewing children under the Directive on procedural safeguards for children. However, AVR is only afforded where it is proportionate in the circumstances of the case, taking into account, inter alia, whether a lawyer is present or not and whether the child is deprived of liberty or not, provided that the child’s best interests are always a primary consideration. Yet, as to date, there is no requirement at the EU level to audio-visually record police interviews for all adult suspected persons. 24. CPT, 1992, “Police custody”, Extract from the 2nd General Report of the CPT, CPT/Inf(92)3, § 39. <https://rm.coe.int/16806cea2f>. 25. CPT, 2002, “Developments concerning CPT standards in respect of police custody”, Extract from the 12th General Report of the CPT, CPT/Inf(2002)15, § 36<https://rm.coe.int/16806cd1ed>. 26. ECtHR, Doyle v. Ireland, Application no. 51979/17, § 99. 11