Ukraine’s experience in implementing investigative interviewing: a discussion on systemic change in Strasbourg
A few years ago, when investigative interviewing first began to be discussed in Ukraine, it sounded rather abstract to many. Another international standard, another methodology that might remain in presentations and training materials but never reach everyday practice.
It was precisely this journey — from idea to real change within the system — that was discussed during a meeting at the Council of Europe dedicated to the implementation of investigative interviewing and the Méndez Principles.
The Ambassadors of Norway and Ukraine opened the event. This was followed by opening remarks from Asbjørn Rachlew, a leading Norwegian expert who is Detective Superintendent of the Oslo Police, a researcher at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, and a member of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), and from Mykola Hnatovskii, a judge at the European Court of Human Rights. They discussed the broader shift in interrogation approaches within democratic systems, moving from confession-oriented models to methods based on gathering reliable information, scientific evidence, and respect for human rights. A key message of the event was that countries must invest greater efforts in transforming their investigative systems, and that the Méndez Principles and investigative interviewing represent the kind of standard that can fundamentally change how information is obtained.
The Ukrainian experience was presented as an example of how systems can approach such change. Vasylyna Yavorska, Head of JustGroup, spoke about how this approach has been gradually implemented in Ukraine since 2017.
“As we look at the history of criminal justice reforms, we see a familiar pattern: we have learned how to change legislation, integrate international standards, and adopt new legal provisions. But too often these changes risk remaining formal — existing in documents without taking root in daily practice,” noted Vasylyna Yavorska.
For investigative interviewing, however, the process evolved differently. Instead of attempting to introduce yet another legislative change or rapidly train everyone at once, the team focused on building a community of change agents. These are investigators, detectives, and prosecutors willing to test the approach in their daily work, analyse interviews, discuss complex cases, and gradually change their own practices — later sharing this experience with others.
Over time, various institutions within the criminal justice system joined these efforts, including the Office of the Prosecutor General, NABU, the Economic Security Bureau, and the National Police. From this environment, a professional community of practitioners has emerged that continues to develop the approach today.
During the panel discussion, Denys Lysenko, Deputy Head of the War Crimes Department at the Office of the Prosecutor General, spoke about how investigative interviewing methodology is applied in investigations of international crimes, particularly in work with victims, children, and other vulnerable witnesses. Yurii Bielousov, Deputy Director of the Economic Security Bureau, shared another dimension of this experience — how the investigative interviewing approach has developed in Ukraine over recent years and how it can be applied in investigations of both war crimes and economic crimes.
Investigative interviewing introduces a different logic: working with multiple hypotheses, verifying information, and focusing not on obtaining the “desired answer” but on gathering reliable data. Russia’s full-scale invasion has made this change even more necessary. Ukrainian investigators and prosecutors work with thousands of victims and witnesses of war crimes, and often an interview may take place only once. This makes the quality of the first conversation — the way it is conducted, respect for human rights, and the accuracy of documentation — critically important.
Today, investigative interviewing in Ukraine is gradually moving from the level of individual initiatives to institutional decisions. Standards are being developed, training programmes are expanding, specialised interview rooms are being created, and systems for assessing interview quality are emerging.
This is a long process. And it is certainly not finished yet. But what once sounded like an abstract idea is gradually becoming part of professional practice. It was precisely this journey — from the first discussions to systemic change — that was discussed in Strasbourg together with international colleagues.
