In late January 2026, and on behalf of Working Group 4, I had the opportunity to meet with Yuriy Bielousov from Ukraine. Yuriy and I had a wide-ranging conversation about Ukraine’s transition toward an ethical, science-based, model of investigative interviewing and his reflections upon this journey.
On the day our conversation was attended by an audience of over 50 project members but, even then I was conscious that this was but a fraction of the overall ImpleMéndez membership. So, in discussion with my colleagues, I hope to bring that conversation, and those which followed, to a wider audience.
Setting the scene
We cannot ignore the context in which this conversation, and the incredible work of our Ukrainian colleagues, is occurring. Ukraine is in a war for her very existence and her citizens daily face threats which most of us can only imagine. Change is hard and I know from discussions with ImpleMéndez colleagues over the past 18 months that sometimes it can seem impossible to make progress or get the support you need. So, just imagine how hard it is when you are also in an active war zone, and yet our Ukrainian colleagues are making great strides forwards.
Until recently, Yuriy led the War Crimes Department in the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine. In an ideal world this role would not exist and while I don’t know how many countries have a comparable organisation I would guess that the answer is ‘not many’. Ukraine built the War Crimes Department at speed and with the intention that it would operate in accordance with the principles of ethical practice originally set out by our project namesake, Professor Juan Méndez.
Innovating at speed
Of course it can be argued that a time of national conflict is precisely when innovation is most needed and most welcomed, but there is a world of difference between developing new technologies versus actively encouraging change which some might see as making their job harder. The very title of Yuriy’s job gives us a sense of both what has been going on in Ukraine. How difficult it must be to argue for the adoption of ethical investigative interviewing when you, your colleagues, and your fellow citizens know that your adversary has shown no intention of respecting long-standing international codes such as the Geneva Convention.
So what of those changes, what has been happening in Ukraine? Well, for one thing the role of leadership in supporting change has been recognised from the outset, and by leadership I out just mean those at the top levels of Ukraine’s law enforcement bodies. Consideration has also been given to those in key positions of influence, such as mid-level team leaders and individuals in training roles. Two examples stand out though as having helped drive change in Ukraine. First was an early alliance with The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), itself a relatively recently created organisation and so less influenced by legacy practices. NABU was an enthusiastic partner, in contrast to the initially quite resistant attitude of more established policing organisations.
Secondly was gaining the trust and support of a national network of policing trainers, key individuals who are able not only to influence those joining policing, but also to act as promoters of ethical investigative interviewing amongst their peers. It has been of note how many times the importance of gaining the support of mid-level personnel has come up in conversations like these and in my parallel discussions about leadership with ImpleMéndez colleagues. This just serves to reinforce that when think about the role of leadership in change we shouldn’t only be looking at the top echelons of an institution.
Make it a competition
Another fascinating observation was how the relationship with NABU has generated competition between law enforcement agencies in Ukraine. It seems that by getting the support of NABU and by NABU achieving good results, both operationally and in terms of reputation, other agencies have begun to ask ‘what are they doing that we are not’?
Find your champions
It is still to early to say what will happen but generating a healthy spirit of rivalry between institutions may be another way to help moves towards embedding ethical investigative interviewing. This is something I hope to revisit in a future blog but for now I guess what we need to think about is how to identify that first partner organisation and also the individuals who will support and champion what we are trying to do. My suggestion here is to think about stakeholder analysis and work out where you should invest your time and effort in relationship building.
Setting the standard
Changing what happens in the interview room is but a small part of a shift from seeking confession toward a focus on gaining information. Yuriy’s discussions with institutional leaders across multiple law enforcement agencies in Ukraine had revealed a real desire for improvement – leaders each want their team to be the best they can be. Leaders promoting the message “if you want to do your job better, this is how” to emphasise the benefits of adopting ethical practices is arguably a situation we would all like our work to lead towards. It isn’t for academics and researchers to tell practitioners how to do their jobs, but if we can convince leaders at every level to support such messaging then I suggest things are moving in the right direction.
Conversely, we also discussed how reported human rights violations should be seen as a [negative] visible indicator of the effectiveness of law enforcement in particular jurisdictions and not just focused on as criminal acts in themselves. Such indicators, particularly on the international stage can do serious harm to country and leadership reputations. By contrast the adoption and implementation of the Méndez Principles are highly positive, both for leader’s reputations and to demonstrate a country’s compliance with international norms.
Describing his vision, Yuriy talked about ethical investigative interviewing as embedded in strategy and practice, part of organisational DNA. Ethical practices should extend to the entirety of any investigation, integrated into leadership practices, part of investigative management process, and integral to both initial training and subsequent professional development. As an example he described the strategic value of introducing audio and audio visual recording at interview and how such practices can form part of an instrument for law enforcement quality/compliance measurement as well as delivering the practical operational benefits that come from having a true record.
Research as an enabler
Research has an important role to play in supporting change and ideally should be an integrated part of any effort to introduce and embed ethical investigative practices. Yuriy described how while research and practice remain separated I many respects, he has experienced many examples of practitioners referring to recent research publications. So, I suggest there is no lack of appetite for new approaches but busy practitioners often do not have the time or resources necessary to understand and promote the benefits of change initiatives – ImpleMéndez is no different. Where research, and academics can add real value is in bridging resource and knowledge gaps – sharing the burden and help turn appetite and enthusiasm into real impact.
Keep going
Efforts continue, in relation to ethical investigative practices and there is much yet to be done. Not everyone in Ukrainian law enforcement or the criminal justice system has been convinced of the benefits of ethical investigative interviewing and there are still some active blocks to progress. As an example we touched upon the [Dimitry] Kurashov[1] case, where challenges around extended pre-trial detention and the suspect right to silence remain a concern. The message from our discussion was that implementing the Méndez Principles is not easy or straightforward and it is not some sort of finish line to be crossed. Implementation is an enduring process which needs constant attention – to summarise what I learned from this extraordinary conversation I would use four words “great work, keep going”.
Thank you, Yuriy, for sharing your experiences and wisdom with us all.
[1] Dmiitrii Kurashov is a Russian solder who was captured in January 2024 and charged with violating the laws and customs of war by summarily executing a surrendered Ukrainian Soldier. Kurashov was sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2025. He admitted his guilt but repeatedly refused to testify despite apparent attempts to persuade him to do so including repeated extensions of his pre-trial detention.