It is a widely debated issue in the field of criminal investigations: how to detect deception during investigative interviews. Many techniques exist for this purpose, but not all are ethically sound, empirically validated, or compatible with the Méndez Principles, the UN principles promoting human rights-compliant interviewing practices.
The expert meeting
The goal of the initiative is to produce a rigorous, practice-oriented white paper in accordance with the Méndez principles that can inform policy, training, and the professional use of deception detection techniques in investigative settings. In line with the NSCR’s commitment to evidence-based practice, the white paper will critically assess what works and, importantly, what does not work in detecting deception during interviews.
To evaluate interviewing techniques from multiple perspectives, researchers, legal scholars, and police investigators from across the globe came together in Krakow. They examined the theoretical basis, empirical evidence, ethical and legal constraints, and practical feasibility.
The agenda spanned a wide range of evidence-based methods, including the Strategic Use of Evidence, the Verifiability Approach, Cognitive Credibility Assessment, the Asymmetric Information Management (AIM) Technique, and Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID), among others. These methods were examined in comparison or in the context of the Méndez principles.
COST Action CA22128 ImpleMendez
Palena is, next to NSCR researcher, a member of the Management Committee of COST Action CA22128 ImpleMendez, a European network dedicated to the implementation of evidence-based interviewing principles. As part of this broader commitment, he co-organised, together with Jaume Masip (University of Salamanca), Bruno Verschuere (University of Amsterdam), Letizia Caso (LUMSA University), and Vincent Denault (Université de Montréal), the two-day expert meeting in Krakow.
Nicola Palena stated: “Participating in this meeting was both intellectually stimulating and productive. The room brought together experts with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, and the collegial atmosphere fostered substantive discussions. Researchers, legal scholars, and law enforcement practitioners exchanged ideas and compared their views, which allowed us to identify concrete next steps for both the research agenda and the practical implementation of evidence-based interviewing.”
