● <B>What is the relationship between policing and human rights? </B>

Very often, people seem to think that they relate in a negative way, as they see the police as potential human rights violators and, sometimes, even as actual human rights violators. More and more, Amnesty International increasingly thinks of the police as human rights defenders. If policing is carried out in a proper way then the police provide the order in which people can enjoy their human rights. This means that human rights NGOs and the police are allies that should work together rather than oppose each other.

● <B>You?re saying that human rights and policing are compatible. That?s good news?</B>

Very much so. One way to look at policing is law enforcement. I think that?s too narrow a definition.

● <B>Why do the police turn into human rights violators? What are the obstacles to proper policing, as you call it? </B>

A policeman here asked me that very question. There are many different reasons. Partly, it has to do with law. Some countries have legal systems which facilitate or even encourage human rights violations. For example, if, by law, a confession is considered sufficient evidence to get a person convicted, then, of course, police officers will be tempted to obtain confessions. Whereas, if the rules of evidence are such that at least two pieces are needed then the police will need to conduct a proper investigation before they can send the case to court.

● <B>In Mauritius, an absurdly high amount of convictions rely on confessions. How should this issue be addressed? </B>

The police are not responsible for the law, they only enforce it. The legislative assembly should make sure that the laws are proper and that they are in accordance with international human rights standards.

● <B>Do you think that human rights violations are often the result of ineffective policing methods? </B>

Of course, if the police made good use of forensic evidence, such as preserving crime scenes and if that evidence was admissible in court, it would greatly lessen reliance on statements. The use of forensic evidence does not however preclude human rights violations.

● <B>Over and above the legal component, there?s also the need for a change of mindsets, isn?t there? </B>

Very much so. Very often, the police culture accepts, condones and, sometimes, even stimulates human rights violations. In some instances, the police leadership indirectly encourages human rights violations by asking that a case be resolved quickly because of pressure from political circles, the media or the public. Police leadership should take the responsibility of preventing officers from committing violations by identifying the reasons for which they occur. In general, human rights infringements occur because the hierarchy allows them to.

● <B>In Mauritius, it has happened that suspects die in police custody. How does one go about detecting the flaws that allow these abuses? </B>

Many tools exist to effectuate such analyses. What I understand is that, in Mauritius, many of these deaths in custody are suicides. Of course, the police have to make sure that people in their custody cannot commit suicide. This seems a fairly simple thing to accomplish.

● <B>Who should be vested with the power of investigating cases of human rights abuses by police officers? </B>

The ideal system is one where different players check up on each other. There should always be an internal accountability system where the senior officer investigates his subordinate. If the senior officer is unwilling to do so then any other system will be difficult to implement. There should also be an external structure with a proper criminal proceedings system, parliamentary and public oversight mechanisms, an inspectorate at the ministry level, and independent oversight body. All the different systems need to keep each other in check in order to create an effective accountability system.

<I>?What I understand is that, in Mauritius, many of these deaths in custody are suicides. Of course, the police have to make sure that people in their custody cannot commit suicide.?</I>

● <B>Should police officers be suspended pending investigations against them? </B>

That?s another question I was asked at the Police training school. I can imagine that a superior officer decides to suspend a subordinate during an investigation, because police officers have immense powers. In general, a police officer who is under investigations should have the same rights as any other suspect, meaning presumption of innocence and the right to legal counsel.

Very often, under disciplinary proceedings police officers do not have these rights, which I do not think is correct. But because the police have such important responsibilities within society, I can imagine that a superior chooses to suspend a subordinate, even if, by doing so, he conveys the message that the latter is guilty.

● <B>On the other hand, unscrupulous suspects sometimes pretend that their human rights have been abused in order to discredit the police?</B>

That?s bad luck for the police officer. It makes police work more difficult but if he conducts his investigation properly then...

● <B> What has been the response of police officers you?ve met? </B>

They?ve been very open. I have the impression that many developments seeking to improve the respect of human rights are underway.

● <B>In ?Understanding policing?, you write that, ?the period just following arrest and detention is when a detainee is most at risk from police abuse?. Why is this? </B>

That period is almost like a legal vacuum. Very often, the arrest itself can be a very physical situation. Psychologically, it can be stressful for police officers. That?s not a justification though. I?d tell the police to not submit other people to the sort of treatment that they wouldn?t like to be submitted to themselves.