Therese Maria Rytter is the Legal Director of DIGNITY and is a Méndez Principles Steering Committee member.
- Across Europe, there is encouraging but uneven progress in the adoption of rapport-based investigative interviewing and the strengthening of safeguards against police ill-treatment, though significant challenges remain in practice.
- There is a growing body of evidence showing a strong link between safeguards and interviewing practices: when safeguards are applied from the outset of police custody, they improve the fairness of police interviews and reduce the risk of ill-treatment.
- Sustainable reform depends on deeper institutional change across the criminal justice system, including a shift in professional culture within police services, prosecution services, and the judiciary toward evidence-based, non-coercive practices grounded in respect for human dignity.
Five years after the adoption of the Méndez Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering, we are seeing important progress in Europe.
Across the continent, there is growing recognition that coercive interrogation practices are not only incompatible with human rights standards, but also ineffective for obtaining accurate and reliable information. A number of police services are moving away from confession-driven interrogation methods and toward investigative interviewing models based on communication, professionalism, and respect for human dignity. At the same time, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) continue to document allegations of ill-treatment, particularly upon apprehension, during transport to the police station and at the early stages of police custody.
Drawing on recent monitoring findings across Europe, there is now clear evidence of a strong correlation between safeguards and interviewing practices. Where safeguards are respected, allegations of police ill-treatment are generally rarer. Conversely, where safeguards are weak, delayed, or bypassed, coercive practices are far more likely to persist.
From confession-driven practices to investigative interviewing
The Méndez Principles were adopted in 2021 as the first universal set of standards for effective, ethical and human-rights complaint interviewing. They are rooted in international human rights law and decades of scientific research demonstrating that coercive interrogation techniques are unreliable, counterproductive, and harmful. Instead of focusing on obtaining confessions, the Principles promote rapport-based and investigative interviewing and information gathering.
Over the past five years, their influence has been particularly visible in Europe, where a number of states have accelerated reforms in police interviewing practices and detention safeguards. The work of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) alongside national preventive mechanisms and civil society organisations, has helped reinforce these developments through monitoring, dialogue, and practical recommendations.
Countries, such as the United Kingdom and Norway, are often highlighted for their well-established investigative interviewing models. Other countries, including Ireland, the Netherlands, and Sweden, have also made important progress. Meanwhile, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and Ukraine are moving in a similar direction.
Safeguards shape what happens in the interview room
The relevance of the Méndez Principles extends beyond the interview room itself. One of the clearest lessons emerging from European practice is that safeguards during the initial period of police custody directly affect the fairness and integrity of interviews. A suspect who is denied timely access to legal counsel, kept incommunicado, subjected to intimidation, or questioned informally before procedural rights apply is far more vulnerable to coercion. Conversely, when safeguards are implemented effectively from the outset, investigators operate in a more professional and accountable environment.
Several safeguards have seen notable improvements across Europe in recent years.
Better information on rights
Many countries now provide clearer and more systematic information to detainees on their rights. Police officers are more frequently expected to explain rights verbally, and written information sheets are increasingly available in multiple languages. This is crucial because detainees can only exercise their rights if they know them and understand them.
Earlier notification of family members
There has also been progress in ensuring that detainees can notify a family member or another trusted person about their detention. In several countries, notification procedures are now faster, more reliable, and better documented. In Spain, for instance, detainees have a right to speak with the family by phone in the presence of the police, and in Poland improved custody records now include documentation of notification. These safeguards have both practical and psychological importance because external contact reduces isolation and increases transparency, making abusive treatment less likely.
Improved effectiveness of the right of early access to a lawyer
Across Europe, there has been a gradual shift from merely recognising the right of access to a lawyer in law to improving its effectiveness in practice. Delays in contacting lawyers have been reduced in some countries, confidentiality of lawyer-detainee talks is increasingly respected, and legal aid systems are more widely available. This safeguard is important, because when lawyers are present early in detention, the risk of coercive practices decreases significantly.
Progress towards more systematic medical screening and recording of injuries
Medical examination of police detainees shortly after their arrival at the police station or detention centre is increasingly recognised not simply as a healthcare measure, but as an essential safeguard against ill-treatment. In recent years, some countries have introduced routine medical screening upon arrival at the police station, such as Spain, and we have seen that the quality of the recording of injuries has improved in some jurisdictions. In Lithuania, for instance, the quality and consistency of injury recording have improved.
Importantly, in some Council of Europe states there has been a shift from only documenting injuries to actively reporting them to the prosecution authorities, which is crucial to ensure accountability for police ill-treatment. In Georgia, for instance, we have witnessed systematic and high-quality documentation of injuries and prompt reporting to the prosecution authorities.
Growth in the use of recording technologies
Technological safeguards have also expanded. Audio recording of interviews has become increasingly common, and some countries are extending audiovisual recording, particularly in serious criminal cases or when interviewing vulnerable individuals. Electronic recordings ensure an authentic record of the interview, it protects everyone involved and it supports accountability.
In the United Kingdom and Ireland audio-recording is now standard and audio-visual recording is common in serious cases. In countries like Belgium, France and the Netherlands AV recording is increasingly used, especially for serious crime. The leading country in Europe remains Norway, where AV recording is used extensively, not only in cases of the most serious crimes.
Another important trend is the professionalisation of police custody systems.
Several countries have introduced clearer separation between operational policing, detention management, and investigative functions. Another important trend is that centralised detention facilities are replacing smaller local holding cells. This separation and specialisation reduce conflicts of interest. Staff responsible for detainee welfare are not tied to investigative outcomes, creating an environment where safeguards are more likely to be respected.
Independent oversight has become more effective
Independent oversight has also become more robust with the expansion of National Preventive Mechanisms and other independent monitoring bodies. Across Europe, we have seen a maturing of these oversight bodies many of which conduct more frequent visits, including unannounced ones, and have gained increasing authority and influence. In parallel, some countries have strengthened external police complaints bodies with greater independence and investigative powers.
Persistent Gaps and Ongoing Risks
Despite these positive developments, important challenges persist.
The CPT continues to receive allegations of excessive force during apprehension and during the first phase of police custody. Informal questioning remains a serious issue in several countries, particularly when suspects are questioned outside formal interview procedures without access to a lawyer.
In some cases, individuals are treated as “witnesses” despite de facto being suspects, allowing authorities to bypass safeguards. Delays in access to lawyers, poor quality legal assistance, and pressure to confess continue to undermine procedural protections.
Confession-oriented practices also remain deeply rooted in parts of Europe, particularly where institutional cultures continue to reward admissions of guilt over evidence-based investigations. At the same time, accountability mechanisms are often not sufficiently independent or effective, and across the continent we see that impunity for police ill-treatment prevails.
It is about changing institutional culture.
Perhaps the most important insight from European developments over the past five years is that lasting change depends on institutional culture.
Countries that have made significant progress in reducing police ill-treatment often describe a broader transformation in policing culture and criminal justice practices. Safeguards matter enormously, but their effectiveness depends on whether institutions genuinely embrace professionalism, accountability, and respect for human dignity.
This cultural shift must extend beyond the police. Prosecutors and judges play a critical role in reinforcing non-coercive practices. Prosecutors should prioritise evidence-based investigations rather than confession-driven ones, and courts must scrutinise evidence obtained under questionable circumstances.
The Méndez Principles therefore represent more than a technical guide to interviewing. They embody a wider vision of criminal justice grounded in legality, dignity, and professionalism.
Five years after their adoption, Europe demonstrates both the possibilities and the limitations of reform. Important progress has been achieved in safeguards, investigative interviewing, oversight, and accountability. Yet the persistence of ill-treatment in some contexts shows that reforms remain fragile when they are not accompanied by deeper institutional change.
The continued implementation of the Méndez Principles across Europe will therefore depend not only on legal reform, but on sustaining a long-term commitment to changing how criminal justice systems understand power, accountability, and the role of policing in a democratic society.
