Interrogation techniques

Contents

No Trace Project > Threat Library > Techniques > Interrogation techniques

Contents

Interrogation techniques are the methods used by an adversary to obtain information from people during interrogations.

Interrogation techniques can include lying, making threats, instilling guilt, shame, or pride, trying to appear friendly and helpful or, on the contrary, threatening and violent, etc. In some cases, they can include physical violence.

See How the police interrogate and how to defend against it (in French and German) for a comprehensive overview of police interrogation techniques.

Used in tactics: Incrimination

Mitigations

NameDescription
Avoiding self-incrimination

You should not talk to an adversary under any circumstances: this is the best way to resist their interrogation techniques.

Used in repressive operations

NameDescription
Case against Ruslan Siddiqi

After his arrest, investigators were unsure of Ruslan Siddiqi's involvement in the bombing.[1] They interrogated him and deduced that he was hiding something. Ruslan Siddiqi recounts: “They started asking various questions about what I was doing on [the day of the bombing]. I made a couple of blunders in my answers, and [the person in civilian clothes] who asked the questions realized that I was hiding something.”

Case against Boris

When interrogating people close to Boris, investigators used elaborate lies to try to get information from them.[2] For example, the investigators vaguely suspected that the people being interrogated had hosted Boris in April 2020 and wanted to confirm their suspicion, so they asked, “Our investigation revealed that you let [Boris] stay with you in April 2020. How long did he stay with you?”

December 8 case

When interrogating defendants during custody, investigators:[3]

  • Pretended that the defendants would not be charged if they snitched on the other defendants, which was a lie.
  • Threatened one of the defendants with sexual assault.
Warsaw 3

A few weeks into his detention, one person gave an “extensive” testimony to the police. He claimed this was partly because of two techniques used by one of his lawyers to push him to give this testimony:[4]

  • The lawyer showed him a social media post written by someone from his political scene shortly after his arrest. The post criticized the action for which he had been arrested and did not include a declaration of solidarity. Because the post was the only reaction from his political scene that the person knew about, he felt isolated.
  • The lawyer told him that the two other people had already given extensive testimonies to the police, which was a lie.