FACTSHEET
• Are interrogations video-recorded? If so, is this done
the software used resulted in law enforcement officials
storing the information on private memory sticks.11
• When interrogations are video-recorded, is the
In some contexts, laws stipulate how long data recorded
by CCTV should be stored before being destroyed.
However, these provisions are commonly limited in scope
to images recorded in public areas and do not include
similar images recorded in police stations. This can lead
to arbitrariness in the conservation of data and practices
that differ hugely from one police station to another. Law
enforcement officials may not know how long to store
this information and how and when to destroy it.
systematically?
recording done for the entire interrogation (without
interruption)?
• Are there any blind spots in places under
video surveillance (especially in rooms used for
interrogations)?
• Are cameras fixed/rotating/able to have a full view of
the rooms under observation?
• Are there cameras which are turned off? If so, when
and for what reasons?
• Are some screens visible to persons not authorised to
view them (including members of the general public
entering the police station)?
• Is the CCTV monitoring system used as a substitute
for the physical and regular presence of staff?
3.2 Recording, storage and accountability
CCTV monitoring systems can either be limited to the
transmission of images or record them at the same
time. From a preventive perspective, CCTV in places of
deprivation of liberty should have a recording function.
The possibility of viewing footage in order to ascertain the
veracity of allegations of ill-treatment grants protection
both to detainees and police officers. However, the
presence of a CCTV monitoring system should not
replace call bells.
The mere presence of a camera does not mean
that police officers watch the screens constantly,
whereas call-bells allow for police officers to be alerted
immediately. Especially when detainees are at risk of
suicide or when they are in ‘sobering-up cells’, police
officers should regularly visit the cells to check on their
condition, whether or not a CCTV monitoring system is
in place.
That officials who analyse the images are sensitized
to do so and are well aware of the relevant regulations
is also an important safeguard against torture and illtreatment. However, monitoring a screen should not be
the responsibility of only one police officer or other staff
member for a whole day/shift. Police officers should have
a variety of tasks so as not to fall into a routine that could
make them less alert.
The storage of all images recorded by CCTV should be
closely regulated and supervised. Authorities should
develop policies and regulations at the earliest stage,
when the decision is taken to install CCTV in police
stations, to ensure that recordings meet their objective
and are being used professionally. For example, cases
have been documented where the limited memory of
Taking into consideration the sensitivity of images and the
right to privacy, it is essential that the information is used
and managed in a proper way, and that footage can be
traced from its recording to its destruction. Police officers
should be instructed in the professional use of CCTV
cameras and the management, storage and destruction
of data, and trained on safeguards relating to privacy.
When audio-recording is used during interrogations, it
should not be possible to stop recording randomly during
questioning, and the whole interrogation should be
taped. If it is possible for investigating officers to interrupt
recording, there is an increased risk of a confession or
statement being coerced and abuse going unrecorded.
The practice of only recording the final statement of the
accused is equally problematic. Such practices shatter
the deterrent function of video-recording, as questioning
is one of the moments when a person is most at risk of
being subjected to abuse.12
It should be noted that footage of interrogations may
also be used for training police officers, including training
on human rights. The educational use of such footage
should not undermine detainees’ right to privacy and
whenever used the officers in charge should ensure that
the faces of detainees are blurred.
What could monitoring bodies check?
• Does the CCTV monitoring system record images or
does it merely transmit them without recording?
• Does the system record both images and sound?
• Is the system recording all the time or only at certain
times? If so, why and when?
• Who is authorised to view screens and recordings?
Are the authorised officers identified?
• How is monitoring organised within the police
station? Do police officers in charge of monitoring
screens have other tasks?
• What is the storage medium and how is it
maintained?
• Where and how long is footage kept before being
destroyed? Who has access to this material, and
under what conditions?
11. See French Inspector of places of deprivation of liberty, Rapport d’activité 2012, p42. Available at: http://www.cglpl.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/
CGLPL_ Rapport-2012_version-WEB.pdf <accessed 23 October 2013>.
12. See the CPT’s report on its visit to Slovenia in 2006, [CPT/Inf (2008) 7], para. 24.
4 |
Penal Reform International | Video recording in police custody: Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment