Draft:Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering (Mendez Principles)

Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering (Mendez Principles)

The Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering (also known as the Mendez Principles) is a document drafted by international experts providing a concrete alternative to interrogation methods that rely on coercion (currently available in 11 languages). A global Steering Committee of 15 members guided the process, consulting an Advisory Council comprising more than 80 experts from over 40 countries. The process was coordinated by the Association for the Prevention of Torture, the Anti-Torture Initiative and the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights. The final text represents four years of work and analysis grounded in a scientific research base, documented good practices, established international law and professional ethics.

The document is built on six principles. These are:

Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering
Created	May 2021
Purpose	Establish a concrete alternative to interrogation methods that rely on coercion.
Official website
https://interviewingprinciples.com/

• Effective interviewing is instructed by science, law and ethics.
• Effective interviewing is a comprehensive process for gathering accurate and reliable information while implementing associated legal safeguards.
• Effective interviewing requires identifying and addressing the needs of interviewees in situations of vulnerability.
• Effective interviewing is a professional undertaking that requires specific training.
• Effective interviewing requires transparent and accountable institutions.
• The implementation of effective interviewing requires robust national measures.

These principles are also called the Mendez Principles to honor the former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Juan E. Méndez. The document grew from a thematic report submitted by Prof. Méndez to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2016 calling for the development of international standards for interviews based on scientific research, legal safeguards and ethical principles. The Mendez Principles represent the realization of that call.

Michelle Bachelet, then UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, opened the launch event for the document on June 9, 2021. Since that date, more than 50 countries from all regions have supported them, and a growing body of UN, regional and national documents/jurisprudence reference the document.

Background and Purpose

International law universally condemns torture and ill-treatment as an absolute prohibition. The Mendez Principles offer tools by which to realize this goal. In this respect, they are similar to other protocols, such as the Mandela Rules, Istanbul Protocol and Minnesota Protocol. The Mendez Principles are similarly not legally binding. They are rooted in practical research on how best to gather factual information. They combine legal norms with a comprehensive guide for conducting interviews that uphold accuracy and professionalism. They draw attention to effective, legal and ethical methods that law enforcement and security personnel use across a variety of countries.

The Principles respond to the persistent challenge of torture and ill-treatment during investigations and intelligence gathering, including in situations of armed conflict or public emergency, despite an extensive international legal framework prohibiting such practices. They build on a vast scientific literature that establishes rapport-based, non-coercive interviewing techniques as the most effective means of gathering accurate and reliable information. They also draw on extensive literature underscoring the ineffectiveness and counter-productive property of torture and abuse.

The Mendez Principles seek to transform how authorities question detainees and conduct interviews across a range of straightforward and complex scenarios. They are applicable to all interviews conducted by authorities, including police, intelligence, military, immigration and customs officers, and related administrative bodies. They cover interviews with suspects, witnesses, victims, and other persons of interest.

The global consortium of experts who crafted the text came from various fields, including law enforcement, psychology, national security, military, intelligence gathering, human rights, and criminology. By operationalizing the presumption of innocence, the Principles contribute to more just, safe, and inclusive societies, aligning with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Analytical Structure

Analytically, the Mendez Principles hold that security investigation and interviewing can be lawful and practical. Lawful behavior generates effective interviewing. Effective interviewing stems from adherence to the law. In this respect, the Mendez Principles do not simply maintain that interviewers must comply with the law or that their responsibilities are compatible with legal norms as others have argued. They hold that the motivations to be lawful and practical are interdependent.

This represents a practical and theoretical advancement. The practical advancement is to offer a method that can be implemented anywhere. The more lawful the behavior, the more effective the outcomes. On the other hand, learning to interview effectively professionalizes and reinforces lawful behavior. Unlawful behavior generates poor conditions for acquiring actionable information. And the more dependent investigators become on coercive investigation, the more deprofessionalized and lawless they become.

The safeguards law enforcement must guarantee in the course of an interview coincide with a successful interview in the following manner. Effective interviewing respects rights pertaining to the flow of information (information about rights, information about the reasons for arrest and charges, right to remain silent); rights pertaining to access (to interpretation, to notify a third party, access to a lawyer; access to a doctor and an independent medical examination, to contact the outside world); and the right to documentation and accountability (registration of persons held in detention, full recording of the interview, to review and sign the interview record, habeas corpus, and the existence of effective and independent complaints mechanisms).

The theoretical advancement is to put into question the arguments in favor of coercive interrogation. These arguments hold that practical interrogation and lawful compliance are at odds, if not in principle, in many situations that matter to law enforcement. Examples like the ticking bomb scenario take this assumption for granted. The Mendez Principles offer an alternative: empirically grounded practices applicable to all situations even when time is short, and a bomb is ticking.

The argument is a species of “ought implies can.” A car is not faster than a bicycle if it has no gas. Unlawful interrogation is not faster than legal action if it yields poorer actionable results. Sometimes officers pursue coercive interrogation and torture even when they know they cannot achieve positive outcomes. They may pursue harsh methods to generate a false confession, blackmail individuals, please superiors, achieve promotions, and mislead the public. More generally, they may engage in cruel techniques as part of a broader schema, including terror and retribution. However, none of these goals pertain to the pursuit of accurate and reliable information – the aim of effective interviewing as it is defined in this document.

Formal Structure

Formally, the document has six sections, each addressing one of the six principles for effective interviewing. Each section consists of advice, counsel, and practical steps to be taken.

Principle 1 – On Foundations

This initial Principle establishes the groundwork for effective interviewing practices with three critical pillars: scientific foundations, legal grounds, and widely accepted professional ethics. Together, these components provide the basis for ensuring that interviews are conducted in a manner that upholds all the central elements at stake.

Principle 2 – On Practice

The second Principle outlines a process for conducting interviews, prioritizing the collection of accurate and reliable information. It underscores the importance of legal safeguards, ensuring a non-coercive environment before the interview, establishing and maintaining rapport during the interview, and conducting assessment and analysis at the interview's conclusion.

Principle 3 – On Vulnerabilities

Recognizing the inherent power imbalance that all interviewees face, this Principle highlights the interview as a situation of vulnerability. It also provides guidance on addressing situations of heightened vulnerability and offers a framework for assessing and mitigating potential risks during interviews.

Principle 4 – On Training

Effective interviewing relies on well-trained professionals. It emphasizes the need to train interviewers and promote continuous professional development to ensure that interviewers are able conduct effective interviews.

Principle 5 – On Accountability

Accountability is a cornerstone of effective interviewing practice. This Principle outlines institutional procedures and review mechanisms, effective record-keeping, prevention and reporting of misconduct, external oversight and independent monitoring, as well as processes for handling complaints, conducting investigations, and providing redress and reparations when necessary.

Principle 6 – On Implementation

The final Principle focuses on application within domestic legal frameworks. It addresses institutional culture and capacity, the role of judicial authorities, and the dissemination of these Principles to ensure their widespread adoption and consistent application.

Foundations of the Mendez Principles

The Mendez Principles are grounded in science, law, and ethics. The sources underpinning the document reflect these foundations.

Scientific Sources

Research on Effective Practice

The Mendez Principles build on research from various disciplines, including psychology, criminology, sociology, neuroscience, and medicine.  In particular, “Principle 2, On Practice” is built on well-established evidence-based  inquiry into non-coercive interviewing techniques.

Extensive research confirms the effectiveness of an information-gathering approach to interviewing. Rapport-based, non-coercive methods offer a suite of techniques that trained professionals can apply successfully across various scenarios, including interviews with criminal suspects, victims, witnesses, and intelligence sources.

Establishing and maintaining rapport is the core of these practices. Interviewers achieve this by establishing common ground, identifying shared interests, identities, or attitudes, and by employing active listening skills. Mastering these skills fosters a collaborative relationship between interviewer and interviewee, enabling more effective communication. Building rapport is firmly influenced by the interviewer's ability to cultivate trust and convey respect for human dignity, while demonstrating genuine empathy and a commitment to fair treatment. Such trust includes granting interviewees autonomy over what they choose to disclose. All these processes make it more likely interviewers will collect accurate and reliable information.

Significantly, the Mendez Principles incorporate the latest insights from research on human memory. This work identifies factors that enhance or degrade memory retrieval. Effective Interviewing methods prioritize detailed and accurate reporting by interviewees while mitigating factors that could influence their accounts. Researchers identify several methods including employing open-ended, non-suggestive questioning and affording individuals the opportunity to freely recall information from their memory without interruption. Moreover, strategically planned questioning can direct interviews toward essential matters and enable interviewers to assess whether information provided agrees with that which has been previously collected.

Fundamentally, extensive research underscores the multifaceted benefits of rapport-based, non-coercive interviewing. These practices stimulate open communication, facilitate memory retrieval, enhance the accuracy and reliability of information, enable the exploration of information veracity, increase the likelihood of obtaining rich and genuine admissions, and crucially, reduce the risk of eliciting false information or false confessions.

Research on Ineffective Practice

Recent research also underscores the dangers of coercive practices during interviews. Coercion reduces cooperation and increase resistance,[24] as well as backfires by hindering the collection of factual information.[25] Neuroscience studies reveal that mental and physical coercion can interfere with and potentially damage the memory-retrieval capacity of the brain.[26]

Wide scientific evidence highlights the detrimental impact of coercive interviewing methods on generating reliable information and point to an increasing likelihood of obtaining false confessions.[27] These consequences have far-reaching implications, including wrongful convictions, compromised intelligence gathering and impunity for the truly guilty.[28]

Psychologically coercive questioning methods are similarly compromised. Manipulating perceptions of culpability or consequences elicit incorrect information and increase rates of false confessions.[29] Threats or enactments of physical harm during interviews induce heightened stress levels, impairing memory retrieval and diminishing the recall of accurate or reliable information.[30]

Additionally, research underscores how leading or suggestive questions compromise an interviewee’s memory and the information they provide.[31] These tactics are particularly concerning when applied to interviewees who have a heightened vulnerability due to characteristics such as age, intellectual or psychosocial disabilities.[32]

Furthermore, a common misconception prevails that accurate lie detection can be based on nonverbal cues, such as emotional responses, body language, or physiological signals.[33] However, scientific research consistently debunks these assumptions, highlighting how unreliable such methods are for detecting deception.[34]

While coercion is shown to be less effective and counterproductive through research, the scientific foundations supporting effective interviewing methods illuminate a path towards obtaining truthful information. By adhering to evidence-based approaches rooted in psychology, neuroscience, and other relevant fields, interviewers can cultivate trust, encourage cooperation, and ensure the integrity of the information, as well as the process.

Legal Sources

The framework for the Mendez Principles comes from customary international law, treaty obligations, non-derogable peremptory (jus cogens) norms, and international, regional, and national jurisprudence. This legal foundation ensures the applicability and adaptability of the framework across diverse legal systems.

Central to these legal underpinnings are international human rights norms and standards that are key for the practical implementation of the interview framework. These include the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment, the right to liberty and security, the presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent, the right to a fair trial, and the right to be free from discrimination. Notably, the absolute prohibition of torture, binding on all States and applicable in all circumstances, underscores the imperative to avoid coercion that can amount to ill-treatment in interviewing methods and practices.[35]

The presumption of innocence stands as a cornerstone of justice, signifying that individuals are treated as innocent unless or until they are proven otherwise through a fair and impartial legal process. It dictates that the burden of proving guilt rests on prosecutorial authorities, supported by affirmative evidence presented in a court of law.^[36] Adhering to the legal principle in this context means collecting accurate and reliable information that can constitute lawful and actionable evidence in legal proceedings. This principle also encompasses the right to remain silent and safeguards against compelled self-incrimination, allowing individuals being questioned by authorities to withhold comments or responses to prevent self-incrimination or for any other reason.^[37] Additionally, it obligates authorities to ensure that all interviewees experience their human rights without any form of discrimination and are treated equitably under the law.^[38]

The exclusionary rule, a fundamental component of international legal standards,[39] is intrinsically linked to the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. This rule declares that any information or statements obtained through torture or ill-treatment are illegal and inadmissible in any legal proceedings, except when such evidence is used against those accused of mistreatment.[40] By upholding this rule, the international legal framework condemns and prevents the use of coerced confessions or statements, thereby safeguarding the integrity and fairness of legal proceedings and protecting individuals.

Moreover, the legal foundation incorporates essential principles related to the use of force,[41] non-lethal weapons,[42] corporal punishment,[43] and instruments of restraint.[44] It emphasizes the importance of maintaining up-to-date official records of individuals deprived of liberty,[45] strictly regulating the use of solitary confinement,[46] and closely managing disciplinary sanctions.[47] The legal norms seek to safeguard the personal liberty and security of all individuals and prohibit practices such as enforced disappearance, secret detention, and prolonged incommunicado detention.[48]

Furthermore, the legal framework underscores the necessity of lawful arrest and detention procedures, firmly set out in legislation and consistent with international law. It emphasizes that deprivation of liberty must be based on justifiable and substantiated reasons and considers non-custodial alternatives where appropriate.[49] Authorities should only apprehend and detain individuals after thoroughly evaluating their specific circumstances and when there are valid and well-founded concerns that the person may pose risks such as fleeing, tampering with evidence, exerting influence over witnesses, or engaging in further criminal activities.[50]

These legal and procedural safeguards are not simply an addition to effective interrogation methods. On the contrary, they are integral to the comprehensive interview process. The Mendez Principles show on the basis of the best scientific evidence that legal and investigative work go hand in hand, protecting interviewees’ human rights while upholding the integrity of the information obtained during interviews.[51] They protect both the individual and society itself, ensuring the legitimacy of the entire investigative and legal process.

Sources on Professional Ethics

Effective interviewers adhere to the highest ethical standards, guided by professional regulations and codes of ethics that outline the purpose, values, and expected conduct.[52] These ethical principles govern all aspects of an official’s duties, including interviews, in accordance with international legal obligations. Commitment to ethical interviewing prevails even in situations of intense pressure, such as limited time or demands for immediate results. Interviewers, exercising their authority while upholding the law, strive to achieve ethical outcomes that can withstand ethical, judicial, and public scrutiny.

Professional codes of ethics for law enforcement officials underscore the significance of respect, fairness, and honesty as the fundamental pillars of all interviews. Officials are also required to wield state authority in a lawful, fair, and responsible manner at all times. Any illicit action performed in an official capacity constitutes an abuse of power.

Interviewers bear an ethical duty to employ the most effective methods available that safeguard the rights and dignity of interviewees while preserving the integrity of the process. Likewise, they have an obligation to abstain from coercive tactics, as these methods not only inflict harm on interviewees but also compromise the goal of acquiring accurate information.

---

[24] (MP, fn 9) A. Vrij, C.A. Meissner, S.M. Kassin, A. Morgan III, R.P. Fisher, & S.M. Kleinman, “Psychological perspectives on interrogation”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 12, No. 6 (September 2017); S.C. Houck & L.G. Conway, “Ethically investigating torture efficacy: a new methodology to test the influence of physical pain on decision-making processes in experimental interrogation scenarios”, Journal of Applied Security Research, vol. 10, No. 4 (2015); M.A. Costanzo, & E. Gerrity, “The effects and effectiveness of using torture as an interrogation device: using research to inform the policy debate”, Social Issues and Policy Review, vol. 3, No. 1 (December 2009).

[25] (MP, fn 5) G.H. Gudjonsson, The Psychology of False Confessions: Forty Years of Science and Practice (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, 2018); A. Vrij, C.A. Meissner, S.M. Kassin, A. Morgan III, R.P. Fisher, & S.M. Kleinman, “Psychological perspectives on interrogation”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 12, No. 6 (September 2017); S. O’Mara, Why Torture Doesn’t Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2015); S.M. Kassin, S.A. Drizin, T. Grisso, G.H. Gudjonsson, R.A. Leo, & A.D. Redlich, “Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations” Law & Human Behavior, vol. 34, No. 1 (February 2010).

[26] (MP, fn 6) See, e.g., S. O’Mara, Why Torture Doesn’t Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2015); C.A. Morgan III, S. Southwick, G. Steffian, G.A. Hazlett, & E.F. Loftus, “Misinformation can influence memory for recently experienced, highly stressful events”, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, vol. 36, No. 1 (January/February 2013); K. Young, W. Drevets, J. Schulkin, K. Erickson “Dose dependent effects of hydrocortisone infusion on autobiographical memory recall”, Behavioural Neuroscience, vol. 125, No. 5 (October 2011).

[27] (MP, fn 7) See S.A. Drizin, & R.A. Leo, “The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world”, North Carolina Law Review, vol. 82 (2004); A.D. Redlich, & C.A. Meissner, “Techniques and controversies in the interrogation of suspects” in Psychological Science in the Courtroom, J.L. Skeem, K.S. Douglas & S.O. Lilienfeld, eds. (New York, NY, Guilford Press, 2009). See also J.W. Schiemann, Does Torture Work? (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016).

[28] (MP, fn 16) F.M. Narchet, C.A. Meissner, & M.B. Russano, “Modelling the influence of investigator bias on the elicitation of true and false confessions”, Law & Human Behavior, vol. 35, No. 6 (December 2011); A.A.S. Zuckerman, “Miscarriage of justice – a root treatment” Criminal Law Review, 323 (May 1992); K.A. Findley, M.S. Scott, “The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases”, Wisconsin Law Review, vol. 2 (June 2006).

[29] (MP, fn 11) C.A. Meissner, A.D. Redlich, S.W. Michael, J.R. Evans, C.R. Camilletti, S. Bhatt, & S. Brandon, “Accusatorial and information gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Experimental Criminology, vol. 10, No. 4 (2014); S.M. Kassin, S.A. Drizin, T. Grisso, G.H. Gudjonsson, R.A. Leo, & A.D. Redlich, “Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations” Law & Human Behavior, vol. 34, No. 1 (February 2010).

[30] (MP, fn 12) R.S. Stawski, M.J. Sliwinski, & J.M. Smyth, “The effects of an acute psychosocial stressor on episodic memory”, European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, vol. 21, No. 6 (2009).

[31] (MP, fns 13 & 14) E.F. Loftus, “Intelligence gathering post-9/11”, American Psychologist, vol. 66, No. 6 (2011); B.L. Garrett, “Contaminated confessions revisited”, Virginia Law Review, vol. 101, No. 2. (April 2015); R.A. Leo, “Why interrogation contamination occurs”, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 11, No. 1 (2013).

[32] (MP, fn 17 & 18) A. Vrij, Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, 2nd ed. (West Sussex, England, John Wiley & Sons, 2011); A. Vrij, C.A. Meissner, S.M. Kassin, A. Morgan III, R.P. Fisher, & S.M. Kleinman, “Psychological perspectives on interrogation”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 12, No. 6 (September 2017); G.H. Gudjonsson, The Psychology of False Confessions: Forty Years of Science and Practice (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, 2018). S.A. Drizin, & R.A. Leo, “The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world”, North Carolina Law Review, vol. 82 (2004); S.R. Gross, K. Jacoby, D.J. Matheson, N. Montgomery, & S. Patil, “Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003”, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, vol. 95, No. 2 (2005).

[33] (MP, fn 19) See, e.g., F. Inbau, J. Reid, J. Buckley, & B. Jayne, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 5th ed. (Burlington, Mass., Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011).

[34] (MP, fn 20) P.A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere, eds., Deception Detection: New Challenges and Cognitive Approaches (Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons, 2015).

[35] (MP, fn 33 & 34) Art. 7 of the ICCPR; art. 2 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT); art. 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Art. 16 of the UNCAT; J. Mendez, “Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, UN Docs A/71/298 (August 2016), para. 44; see, e.g., European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Selmouni v. France, No. 25803/94, Judgement, 28 July 1999, paras. 102-105.

[36] (MP, fn 47) Art. 14(3) of the ICCPR; CCPR/C/GC/32, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32: Article 14, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, 23 August 2007, para. 30.

[37] (MP, fn 48) Art. 6(2) and 14(3) of the ICCPR14(3); Article 55(2)(b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998; rule 111 of the Nelson Mandela Rules; principles 15 and 24 of the Body of Principles; see also ECtHR, John Murray v United Kingdom, No. 18731/91, Judgement, 1996, para. 45.

[38] (MP, fn 49) Art. 2(1) of the ICCPR; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.18: Non-discrimination, adopted at the Thirtyseventh Session, 10 November 1989.

[39] P. Kilibarda and G. Gaggioli, “The Mendez Principles: A Focus on the Exclusionary Rule” Just Security (June 22, 2021).

[40] (MP, fn 35) Art. 15 of the UNCAT; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20, Article 7, Prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I), 10 March 1992, para. 12; A/HRC/25/60, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, 10 April 2014; see also CAT/C/GC/2, Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 2, Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties, 24 January 2008, para. 6; see, e.g., CAT/C/30/D/219/2002, para. 6.10.

[41] Art. 2 of the ICCPR; Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (Basic Principles), 1990; A/RES/34/169, Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, 17 December 1979; Rule 82 of A/RES/70/175, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules); A/HRC/RES/46/15, Resolution of the Human Rights Council, 23 March 2021, para. 14; see also E/CN.4/2004/56, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, 2003, para.44.

[42] Basic Principles, 1990; A/RES/34/169; A/HRC/46/15, para. 12; see also CCPR/C/GC/36, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: Article 6, right to life, 3 September 2019, para. 14.

[43] Rules 43 and 47 of the Nelson Mandela Rules; Rule 67 of the A/RES/45/113, United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Havana Rules), 14 December 1990.

[44] Rules 47 and 48 of the Nelson Mandela Rules; A/RES/43/173, Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Body of Principles), 9 December 1998.

[45] Art. 17(3) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (Convention on Enforced Disappearance), 2007; A/HRC/RES/31/31, Resolution of the Human Rights Council, 24 March 2016, para. 9.

[46] Rules 37, 43, 44, 45 of the Nelson Mandela Rules; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20, para 6; A/66/268, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, 2011; Rule 22 of A/C.3/65/L.5, United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), 6 October 2010; Rule 67 of the Havana Rules.

[47] Rules 36 and 37 of the Nelson Mandela Rules; Principle 30 of the Body of Principles.

[48] Art. 9(1) of the ICCPR; art. 17 of the Convention on Enforced Disappearance; art. 37(b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 20 November 1989.

[49] (MP, fn 45) Art. 9(1) of the ICCPR; art. 17 of the Convention on Enforced Disappearance.

[50] (MP, fn 46) A/RES/45/110, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), 2 April 1991; see also guideline 4 of the UNHCR Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum- Seekers and Alternatives to Detention, 2012; pages 17-24 of the UNODC Handbook on Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment, 2007.

[51] (MP, fn 50) A/HRC/RES/31/31; see also R. Carver & L. Handley, Does Torture Prevention Work? (Liverpool, UK, Liverpool University Press, 2016).

[52] (MP, fn 51) See, e.g., A/RES/34/169; International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, October 1957; Southern African Regional Police Chiefs Co-operation Organisation (SARPCCO), Harare Resolution on the SARPCCO Code of Conduct for Police Officials, 31 August 2001; Rec (2001)10, The European Code of Police Ethics, Council of Europe, 19 September 2001.