Interview and Interrogation

Interrogation is a process of questioning by which police obtain evidence. The purpose of an interrogation is to elicit from the suspect or from his or her relatives or associates information that they may be suppressing in order to protect the suspect from being subjected to criminal prosecution (Galero-Müftüoglu, 2017, p. 187). The interrogation process is largely outside the governance of law except for rules concerning the admissibility at trial of confessions obtained through interrogation and limitations on the power of police to detain suspected persons against their will.

Three Objectives of Interrogation

Aside from obtaining information detrimental to a suspect’s case, the following are the three objectives of interrogation (Galero-Müftüoglu, 2017, p. 188):

1. Establish the innocence of a suspect by clearing up facts that seem to point to guilt;
2. Obtain from the suspect or relatives and friends of the suspect:
   • The names of accomplices;
   • The facts and circumstances surrounding the crime;
   • Follow-up leads provided unwittingly, or with ulterior motive, such as faking an alibi;
   • The location of stolen goods;
   • The location of physical evidence, such as documents, a weapon, or a burglar’s tool.
3. Obtain from the suspect alone:
   • Admission This refers to the express or implied statement tending to support the suspect’s involvement in the crime, but insufficient by itself to prove guilt;
   • Confession This pertains to an oral or written statement acknowledging guilt.

Investigative Interviews

An interview is a structured conversation where one person or the “interviewer” seeks to gather information from another or the “interviewee” as part of any investigation or intelligence operation. The objective is to obtain accurate and reliable information while respecting human rights; eliciting facts is the aim, not a confession. In the process of interviewing suspects there is the added potential goal of obtaining an admission of guilt or a confession. However, this must not be the primary or sole purpose of the interview as even a confession must be substantiated by information and evidence. This will reduce the likelihood of a false confession and will also enable officers to present a stronger case against the suspect, should a confession later be retracted.

Investigative interviewing is a technique developed by practitioners to respond to the large body of scientific evidence that abusive and coercive techniques elicit unreliable information. It uses building rapport with the interviewee, which prevents abusive practices, and also improves the collection and reliability of information. It is a non-coercive approach using open questions to improve the flow of communication and information. (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017)

Goals of Investigative Interviews

1. Eliciting more accurate and reliable information during interviews.
2. Strengthening the capacity, efficiency, and professionalism of interviewers.
3. Eliminating reliance on unlawful, ineffective, and counterproductive coercive questioning techniques.
4. Providing successful, affordable, and accessible methods and practices with minimal resources.
5. Delivering more effective information-gathering operations.
6. Fostering greater public trust in and cooperation with criminal justice institutions.
7. Ensuring that no person is subjected to coercion, torture or other forms of ill treatment.
8. Protecting the physical and mental integrity of all persons who interact with public authorities.

Interrogation/Interview Techniques

Reid Method

Reid Method, also known as The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation, is the interrogation technique widely used by police departments. The Reid Technique involves three components namely:

1. Factual Analysis
   It is an inductive approach where each individual suspect is evaluated with respect to specific observations relating to the crime. It relies not only on crime scene analysis, but also on information learned about each suspect. Its goal is establishing an estimate of a particular suspect’s probable guilt or innocence based on such things as the suspect’s bio-social status like: gender, race, occupation, marital status, etc., opportunity and access to commit the crime, their behavior before and after the crime, their motivations and propensity to commit the crime, and evaluation of physical and circumstantial evidence (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, p. 89).
   
   It is also intended to identify characteristics about the suspect and the crime which will be helpful during an interrogation of the suspect believed to be guilty such as motive or the suspect’s personality type (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, p. 99).
   
2. Behavior Analysis Interview
   It is a non-accusatory question and answer session, involving both standard investigative questions and structured “behavior provoking” questions to elicit behavior symptoms of truth or deception from the person being interviewed. The investigator first asks background questions, to establish personal information about the suspect and allow the investigator to evaluate the suspect’s normal verbal and nonverbal behavior.
   
   The investigator then asks behavior-provoking questions intended to elicit different verbal and nonverbal responses from truthful and deceptive suspects (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, p. 63). The investigator will also ask some investigative questions during this stage. It provides objective criteria to render an opinion about the suspect’s truthfulness through evaluating responses to the behavior-provoking and investigative questions.
   
3. Interrogation (NINE Steps)
   An interrogation only occurs when the investigator is reasonably certain of the suspect’s involvement in the issue under investigation (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013,
   
   This is composed of Nine steps they are: (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, p. 100):
   • Direct, Positive Confrontation This is where the investigator tells the suspect that the evidence demonstrates the person’s guilt. If the person’s guilt seems clear to the investigator, the statement should be unequivocal (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, р. 107).
   • Theme Development This is where the investigator presents a moral justification (theme) for the offense, such as placing the moral blame on someone else or outside circumstances. The investigator presents the theme in a monologue and in a sympathetic manner (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, p. 115).
   • Handling Denials When the suspect asks for permission to speak at this stage, likely to deny the accusations, the investigator should discourage allowing the suspect to do so. The innocent suspects are less likely to ask for permission and more likely to promptly and unequivocally deny the accusation. It is very rare for an innocent suspect to move past this denial state (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, р. 139)
   • Overcoming Objections When attempts at denial do not succeed, a guilty suspect often makes objections to support a claim of innocence, phrases such as I would never do that because I love my job are commonly used. The investigator should generally accept these objections as if they were truthful, rather than arguing with the suspect, and use the objections to further develop the theme (Inbau, E., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, p. 149).
   • Procurement and Retention of Suspect’s Attention The investigator must procure the suspect’s attention so that the suspect focuses on the investigator’s theme rather than on punishment. One way the investigator can do this is to close the physical distance between himself or herself and the suspect. The investigator should also channel the theme down to the probable alternative components (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, p. 155).
   • Handling the Suspect’s Passive Mood The investigator needs to intensify the theme presentation and concentrate on the central reasons he or she is offering as psychological justification and continue to display an understanding and sympathetic demeanor in urging the suspect to tell the truth (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, p. 161). 
   • Presenting an Alternative Question The investigator should present two choices, assuming the suspect’s guilt and develop as a logical extension from the theme, with one alternative offering a better justification for the crime e.g., “Did you plan this thing out or did it just happen on the spur of the moment? The investigator may follow the question with a supporting statement “which encourages the suspect to choose the more understandable side of the alternative (Inbau, E., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, р. 168).
   • Having the Suspect Relate Details of the Offense After the suspect accepts one side of the alternative thus admitting guilt, the investigator should immediately respond with a statement of reinforcement acknowledging that admission. The investigator then seeks to obtain a brief oral review of the basic events, before asking more detailed questions (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et al., 2013, p. 176).
   • Converting an Oral Confession to a Written a Confession The investigator must convert the oral confession into a written or recorded confession.

PEACE Method

The PEACE model (Planning and Preparation, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, Evaluation) was developed in the United Kingdom in response to a number of documented forced confessions and associated wrongful convictions in the 1980s and 90s (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017).

Step One: Planning and Preparation

It is one of the most important steps in investigative interviewing; without it, interviews may fail before they even begin. Planning refers to the process of getting ready to interview, both mentally and strategically. Preparation covers what needs to be ready prior to the interview such as the location of the interview, the environment, as well as technical and administrative matters.

Essential Elements of Good Planning

• Obtain as much background information as possible on the incident under investigation, including all relevant information on the person to be interviewed.
• Understand the purpose of the interview based on an investigation plan recognizing all the relevant and competing hypotheses to be explored, including the possibility that the suspect is innocent.
• Assess what additional information is needed and how it can be best obtained.
• Follow the legislation and associated guidelines and rules.
• Prepare the technicalities of the interview: attending to exhibits, logistics, venue, equipment functioning, seating, lawyer, interpreter, and so on (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017).

Step Two: Engage and Explain

Engaging the interviewee and establishing rapport is the first step to encouraging a conversation. It is the most influential factor in ensuring productive interviews (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017). At the outset the interviewee must be informed why they have been brought in for questioning and of the formalities that apply. Officers must be aware that being interviewed can make people nervous and conversation that calms the interviewee may be needed. However, interviewers shall not work towards a pretend “friendship” with interviewees.

The aim is to engage the interviewee so that a cooperative and relaxed relationship (one that stimulates memory and communication) is sustained throughout the interview (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 23).
In engaging with the interviewee the officer should seek the following (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017):

1. Create an empathetic and respectful relationship from the outset
2. Explain the reasons, background, rights, formalities and procedures for the interview, including information about audio/video recording
3. Establish certain ground rules by telling interviewees:
   • That what they have to say is important so they need to report everything they can and try their hardest not to leave anything out
   • Not to edit as they go even if they believe some information has no relevance to the matter being investigated
   • That they need to concentrate because striving to retrieve memories can be hard work
   • That they should feel free to speak up if the officer:
     • asks a question they do not understand;
     • asks a question they do not know the answer to;
     • misunderstands what the interviewee has said; or,
     • asks a leading or inappropriate question

Step Three: Account

Interviewers should allow the interviewee to present their uninterrupted free account of the case or event under investigation; this is after establishing the rapport and explaining the ground rules for the interview. It is important that the interviewee is provided with the opportunity to present their side of the story, before more detailed questions are asked (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017).

Three main steps in getting the free account from the interviewee:

1. Introduce and explain the form and purpose of the free and uninterrupted account
2. Hand over the initiative (“give the floor”) to the victim, witness or suspect (as applicable)
3. Employ active listening while the interviewee presents the free and uninterrupted account

Active listening assists the interviewer to establish rapport and help elicit a full and accurate account. Use TED’S PIE: Tell me, Explain, Describe Show Me – Precisely, In detail, Exactly. Using this approach helps build rapport and prevents the interviewer contaminating the account being given. The TED’S PIE-approach makes use of encouragements/ invitations to obtain an account (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017).

Types of Questioning

• Open-ended Questions Questions that allow the suspect to reply with longer, more detailed responses and lack direction from the interviewer. These can be questions such as; “What happened?” or questions that begin by asking the suspect to”tell”, “explain”or “describe” some event or situation (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 26).
• Closed Questions Questions that require more definite and distinct answers. Examples include, “What time was that?”,”Who else was present?” “What is his address?” Such questions allow more control over what the suspect says and are useful where the suspect has left out information that you need. However, they can limit the account given (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 26).
• Forced-choice Questions Questions that greatly restrict the possible answers to those that you have determined. The question may be “Was it a rifle or a handgun?” when the weapon may have been a shotgun. The suspect may simply pick one of the choices offered in order to please the interviewer or just move the questioning on. You should avoid these as they don’t suggest an open mind, and because answers may lie outside those conceived of by the interviewer. Do not limit the interview in this way (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 26).
• Multiple Questions Questioning where the interviewer asks more than one question at the same time. This can easily confuse an interviewee and make the answers given equally confusing to the interviewer. An example would be to ask, “When did he say that and what did he do and who else was present?” (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 26).
• Leading questions Questions that induce a particular reply and may be judged to have manipulated the interviewee. An example would be to ask,”You wanted to injure him, didn’t you?” They can lead the suspect to the point where they agree with what is being said even where they are uncertain or have no clear memory (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, р. 26).

Step Four: Closure

As the interview comes to an end, the interviewing officer should explain what will happen next by giving the interviewee appropriate information about the next stages of the process: for example, inform suspects of potential pre-trial detention, tell witnesses whether or not they should expect to attend court, etc. (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017).

Finally, the interviewee should be asked if they have any questions for the interviewing officer at this stage. This has little or no real effect if the communication has been coercive. However, if the interview has been conducted as outlined above, this question may add to the interviewee’s perception of having been treated fairly (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p.

The goal of closure are the following (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017):

1. Ensure there is a mutual understanding of the interviewee’s account by reviewing and summarizing it
2. Verify that all aspects have been sufficiently covered by checking that interviewees have given all the information they are able and willing to provide
3. Secure the integrity and dignity of the interview, the legitimacy of any subsequent criminal proceedings, and keep channels open for future communication

Step Five: Evaluation

This is the phase wherein the interviewer evaluates the entire process of the interview and determines if his objectives were met. He also evaluates the method he used in acquiring useful statements from the witness, victim, or suspect and the effectiveness of said method (Galero-Müftüoglu, 2017, p. 186).

If the interview is evaluated by a supervisor, senior officer or colleague, make sure that the interviewing officers are given the opportunity to comment on their own performance, before the evaluator gives their points, starting with what was positive, moving on to what could be improved next time. (Norwegian Center for Human Rights 2017)

Mendez Method

The Mendez Principles, also known as the new Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering. It was named after Juan Mendez, the Argentine lawyer, torture survivor, and former UN Special Rapporteur. It is a concrete alternative to interrogation methods that rely on coercion to extract confessions. They provide guidance on obtaining accurate and reliable information in full respect of the human rights and dignity of all, including through the implementation of legal and procedural safeguards in the first hours of police custody. (IRCT, 2021)

The Mendez Method has three parts; Before, During, and After the Interview.

Before the Interview

• Ensuring a Non-Coercive Environment Creating a non-coercive environment involves the respect and fulfillment of human rights from the first moment of contact between the interviewee and authorities. This allows law enforcement, intelligence, security or military officials to create conditions conducive to gathering accurate and reliable information during the interview, to fulfill State obligations under international law and to protect the rights of the interviewee. Unlawful and unprofessional behavior, and a lack of accountability, at the early stages of contact may taint the overall judicial process irreversibly (Mendez, 2016, p.14-15).
• Keeping the Interviewee Informed Showing concern for the interviewee from the initial contact is the first opportunity for creating trust and rapport. This is more likely when an interviewee is given early, explicit explanations of why they have been brought in for questioning, which formalities apply, and how the interview will proceed. Explaining procedures and likely activities is an early opportunity to display sincerity, provide predictability, be respectful and attentive, and promote trust. The right to be informed by the detaining authority about the reasons for arrest applies regardless of the manner, or the formality or informality with which an arrest is conducted, and regardless of the reasons for the deprivation of liberty (Mendez, 2016, p.15). Information regarding an interviewee’s rights and how to exercise them should be conveyed verbally, in clear, non-technical, and precise language upon arrest; and it should also be provided in writing by the detaining authority upon arrival at the place of detention in a language and format they understand.
• Notification of Family or Third Party A key safeguard for detainees is their right to promptly notify a family member, friend, or other person of their choice about the fact, place and circumstances of their detention. The detaining authority is responsible for enabling the communication with the third party and recording who has been notified and when the notification took place (Mendez, 2016, p.16). Foreign nationals who are arrested or detained must be informed immediately of their right to communicate with a consular or diplomatic representative of their country of origin, and asylum seekers should be informed of their right to contact relevant international agencies. Contact is to be facilitated by the detaining authority (Mendez, 2016, p.17).
• Access to a Lawyer All detained persons being interviewed have a right to a lawyer, including through legal aid, before any questioning by authorities – independent of their status or formal designation. Access to a lawyer is inextricably linked to the protection of rights, prevention of torture and other ill-treatment, and helps to protect against compelled self-incrimination. The interviewee is entitled to a lawyer of their own choosing, or to have one provided for them free of charge where the interests of justice so require. The presence of the lawyer is compulsory for detained children interviewed as suspects (Mendez, 2016, p.17).
• Access to Medical Examination and Health Care Authorities have a duty to protect the integrity and health of all persons in their custody. Detainees must be expressly guaranteed the right of access to a doctor and the right to a medical examination by an independent health professional, without delay, from the moment of deprivation of liberty. The detaining authority is also responsible for providing detainees with access to medical care throughout their detention. The physical and mental state in which an arrested or detained person enters the detention facility, including signs or complaints of excessive force used during the arrest and transportation into custody, should be recorded by the doctor or other medical professional. Individuals who are to be interviewed must be physically and psychologically fit for that purpose (Mendez, 2016, p.18).
• Preparations for the Interviewer Once an individual has been identified as a person the authorities wish to interview, the appointed interviewer should start thorough preparations. Being fully prepared increases an interviewer’s ability to effectively communicate with interviewees, and hence, the likelihood of obtaining reliable information. Before commencing an interview it is crucial to maximize the investigative and evidentiary value of the information already gathered. When preparing for an interview – and throughout the process – interviewers should exercise caution to avoid confirmation bias. Interviewers should continually monitor their own emotions about the subject matter and their feelings toward the interviewee, to be able to project calm and self-control throughout the interview (Mendez, 2016, p.19).

During the Interview

• Establishing and Maintaining Rapport Effective interviewers are adaptable, listen carefully, communicate empathy, and adopt the ethos that non-coercive, humane, ethical, lawful and appropriate questioning serves the interest of all involved: the interviewer, the interviewee and the information-gathering authorities. They recognize that the interviewer’s role is to acquire the best possible information for decisions to be made. Only courts determine guilt or innocence. The development of rapport is essential in supporting effective information-gathering. During the interview, rapport entails establishing and maintaining a relationship characterized by: respect and trust; a non-judgmental mindset; non-aggressive body language; attentiveness; and patience (Mendez, 2016, p.20).
  
• Information-Gathering Techniques Active listening helps the interviewer process the information provided by the interviewee. By listening actively, the interviewer shows that they are following what the interviewee is saying and making efforts to understand. The interviewer takes care not to lead an interviewee inadvertently by using verbal or visual cues, including sounds, gestures or questions, which may be interpreted as agreeing or disagreeing with what the person is saying. Accurate summaries of what the interviewee has said may facilitate the positive progression of the interview and assist the interviewer and interviewee in recalling important details (Mendez, 2016, р.21).
  
• Encountering Reluctance Interviewers may encounter interviewees who are reluctant to talk and therefore should anticipate how they will handle such situations. Not wanting or agreeing to answer questions may be a deliberate choice. This decision must always be respected and has no bearing on the interviewee’s right to the presumption of innocence. Reasons why an interviewee might be reluctant to talk can include general anxiety or uncertainty about the process, especially if the person has never been involved in such a situation before. It is also possible that an interviewee may be willing to provide information but is unable to do so. This can be because they did not have the relevant information to begin with, or they failed to register the details. Interviewers should not draw negative inferences from the interviewee’s failure or refusal to answer questions and should remain non-judgmental when an interviewee may make admissions to crimes or convey embarrassing information (Mendez, 2016, р.21).
  
• Suspending the Interview It is appropriate and permissible for interviewers to suspend the interview in order to follow-up on information received or conduct additional enquiries. Other reasons to suspend an interview are (Mendez, 2016, р.22):
  • If the interviewee requires medical attention,
  • If a person originally interviewed as a witness becomes a suspect in the course of an interview; and,
  • If the lawyer or the interviewee may request a break, for instance in order to rest or to consult in private.
    
    A refusal to accept such a request by the interviewer may affect the reliability of information gathered from the interview.

After the Interview: Assessment and Analysis

An effective interviewer should always end the interview respectfully and on a professional note. This increases the likelihood of keeping channels open for future communication, avoids possible misunderstandings and can improve trust in public institutions.

The interviewer should review the information obtained with the interviewee and the lawyer, if involved; and, where a written record (as opposed to an audio/video recording) has been made, invite them to sign as a confirmation of the record’s accuracy. Any amendments should be recorded, and if relevant, any refusal of the interviewee to sign the interview record. Once the interview has been completed, the interviewer ensures that the information provided during the process is subject to the appropriate level of privacy and of data protection The interviewer should assess and analyze the following (Mendez, 2016, p.23):

• The value and reliability of the information obtained and how it fits with known evidence, information gaps and other intelligence gathered.
• What further enquiries are necessary in order to advance the investigation or operation; and
• Whether all relevant safeguards were applied effectively.

Kinesic Interview Method

This involves analyzing a person’s behavior to assess deception. (Orlando, 2014) The study of kinesics focuses on the observable outward physical behavior of the body in order to ascertain the person’s current emotional state and the role the body plays in communicating the information. It states that by understanding the vocabulary of the body language, along with the diagnosis of a person’s verbal output, an interviewer could more easily assess a person’s truthfulness or deception regarding current issues under discussion (Walters, 2002, p. 2). It has two phases: the Practical Kinesic Analysis Phase; and the Practical Kinesic Interrogation Phase.

Practical Kinesic Analysis Phase

During the analysis phase, the interviewer uses several techniques to observe and analyze the subject’s behavior in order to determine the subject’s truthful and deceptive behaviors or at least to determine those areas most sensitive to the subject and, therefore, in need of further attention through verbal inquiry. It recognizes the cues of truthful and deceptive behavior generated by the subject through:

1. Verbal Cues This involves the identification of symptoms of speech quality and content which give the interviewer the most productive body of data necessary to determine truth and deception.
2. Practical Kinesic Statement Analysis Assessment of truth and deception through the use of verbal cues coupled with methods of human recall and symptoms made self-evident in the statement taking process.
3. Body Language Cues It refers to the observable body language cues of deception that are unbalanced or inconsistent in relation to the speech cues or emotional symptoms generated by the subject at the same time.
4. Kinesic Subject Control It refers to the various techniques available to the interviewer to take control and command of the interview environment. From proxemics to mirroring or the use of enhanced information gathering skills.
5. Confession Behaviors It is the verbal and nonverbal acceptance cues generated by a subject who is prepared to give an admission of confession.

Practical Kinesic Interrogation Phase

This involves the interviewer determining the subject’s frame of mind in response to the interview stress. It also helps the interviewer in determining if the subject is suffering from personality disorder or psychosis. It also helps the interviewer determine the subject’s personality type which enables him to understand how the subject thinks and to determine the subject’s strengths to be avoided and the weaknesses that can be exploited. Lastly it will help the investigator in determining the defense mechanism of the subject which keeps the subject from having to face the reality of his actions; and by identifying and disarming these mechanisms, the interrogator can obtain admission or confession (Walters, 2002, p. 3).

Guidelines on Custodial Investigation

According to the PNP Operational Procedures Manual (2011), the duties of the Police during custodial investigation are as follows:

1. The arresting officer, or the investigator, as the case may be, shall ensure that a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall, at all times, be assisted by counsel, preferably of his own choice (PNP, 2011, p.33);
2. The arresting officer, or the investigator, as the case may be, must inform the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of the following rights under the Miranda Doctrine in a language or dialect known to and understood by him (PNP, 2011, p-33):
   • That he has the right to remain silent;
   • That if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says can be used in evidence against him in court;
   • That he has the right to counsel of his own choice;
   • That, if he cannot afford one, he shall be provided with an independent and competent counsel; and,
   • That he has the right to be informed of such rights.
3. If the person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation opted to give a sworn statement, the arresting officer, or the investigator, as the case may be, must reduce it in writing (PNP, 2011, p.34)
4. The arresting officer must ensure that, before the sworn statement is signed, or thumb marked, if there is inability to read and to write, the document shall be read and adequately explained to the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation by his counsel of choice, or by the assisting counsel provided to him, in the language or dialect known to him (PNP, 2011, p.34);
5. The arresting officer, or the investigator, as the case may be, must ensure that any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be (PNP, 2011, p.34):
   • In writing;
   • Signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; or
   • In the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, priest, imam or religious minister chosen by him.
     
     It is important to note that failure of the arresting officer, or the investigator, to observe the above mentioned procedures shall render the extrajudicial confession inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. (PNP, 2011, p.34)
6. The arresting officer, or the investigator, as the case may be, must, under established regulations, allow the person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation visits by or conferences with the following:
   • any member of his immediate family,
   • any medical doctor,
   • priest, imam or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any local Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) or by any international NGO duly accredited by the Office of the President.
7. After interrogation, a person under custodial investigation shall have the right to be informed of his right to demand physical examination by an independent and competent doctor of his own choice. If he cannot afford the services of a doctor of his own choice, he shall be provided by the State with a competent and independent doctor to conduct physical examination. If the person arrested is female, she shall be attended to preferably by a female doctor (PNP, 2011,
   p.34-35).
   
   The physical examination of the person under custodial investigation shall be contained in a medical report, which shall be attached to the custodial investigation report.