CENDEP at the UN – and the importance of investigative interviewing

Richard Carver and Lisa Handley write:

Last week was a hectic one for us, in New York for the US launch of our book Does Torture Prevention Work? We are fairly certain that this is the first publication by CENDEP researchers to be discussed at the United Nations General Assembly (though no doubt our colleagues will correct us if we are wrong).

The story began on Monday, when the American Civil Liberties Union, along with the Association for the Prevention of Torture, which funded the research, hosted two discussions of the book – one a closed expert panel and the other a public meeting. This was the same format as the launch in London in September. The New York expert meeting was attended by two of the three UN anti-torture mandate holders, Jens Modvig, chairperson of the Committee Against Torture, and Sir Malcolm Evans, chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Prevention of Torture. The third mandate holder, Juan Méndez, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, spoke at the public meeting.

The following day, all three experts presented their respective reports to the General Assembly. It was enormously gratifying for us when Dr Modvig mentioned our book and the importance of our findings in introducing his report.

Professor Méndez’s report focused on the need for a new international protocol on investigative interviewing by law enforcement officials. His reasoning, which corresponds precisely to one of the key conclusions of our research, is that reduced reliance on confession evidence in criminal investigations is likely to lead to a decrease in the incidence of torture and other ill-treatment of suspects. Professor Méndez hosted a side meeting at the UN to promote the idea of the interviewing protocol and, once again, we were pleased at the obvious impact of our findings, with highly complimentary comments from both the Special Rapporteur himself and Mark Kelly of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, where we had presented our findings a few months ago.

However, we are sure our thunder was stolen by Asbjorn Rachlew, the Norwegian police superintendent who interviewed Anders Behring Breivik, the far-right terrorist who murdered 77 people in 2011. When Breivik was arrested, he told police that there were other active terrorist units primed to launch further attacks – the classic “ticking bomb” scenario that is often used to justify torture. Dr Rachlew also indicated that there were some murmurings from more traditional officers when he, a young officer with a PhD in psychology, was appointed to lead the investigation. Using investigative interviewing rather than coercion, Dr Rachlew and his team quickly established that there was no “ticking bomb.” And, of course, they secured Breivik’s conviction.

There is solid research behind the rationale for an interviewing protocol and already a degree of interest from some police services. One of the things that we observed in our research on torture prevention was that police and other law officers respond best to training that enhances their professional skills, rather than simply offering “thou shalt not” prohibitions on torture.

Our years of field research on the issue mean that we have no illusions that words in the UN building in New York will readily translate into increased protection against torture on the ground. However, similar approaches have worked in the past with the investigation of arbitrary killings (the Minnesota Protocol) and torture (Istanbul Protocol) and we hope the proposed protocol on investigative interviewing becomes a reality before too long.

(photo by Ben Buckland/APT)