An Examination of Factors Affecting Eyewitness Examination in Greece

Abstract

Methods examining eyewitness testimony and its identification of suspects have not received sufficient analysis internationally. In the face of growing empirical evidence of methodologic and judicial errors, Greece’s judicial process nonetheless prioritizes eyewitness testimony in gathering evidence and preparing cases for trial. Due to its pluralistic geographical and cultural position uniting European, Balkan, and Mediterranean influences, and its alignment with non-Napoleonic code nations, Greece is a useful example for studying witness interviewing in evolving judicial systems. Drawing on 87 semi-structured interviews with Greek legal professionals, this study identifies systemic variables affecting eyewitness interviews and suspect identification. Prominent barriers to robust witness interviewing included inappropriate questioning techniques and wording, frequent interruptions, scripted questions, and failure to develop a sense of trust. In identifying suspects, participants highlighted inadequate compliance with defined protocols, inadequate management of negative emotions, pressure on witnesses to make positive identifications, and introduction of improper guidance about the alleged perpetrator. Lengthy delays before the eyewitness interview and a lack of infrastructure were core influences alongside a lack of familiarity with best practices. The findings signal the need for authorities to adopt reliable methods and specific guidance for utilizing eyewitness testimony.

1. Introduction

Witnesses are among the main sources of evidence in criminal proceedings across the globe, supported in Greece by the specific provisions of Article 178 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure (GCCP). Nonetheless, methodological errors still lead to false convictions and acquittals (Berube et al. 2022; Helm 2022), with some critics noting that training in the methodologies of eyewitness examination has been widely neglected (Cecconello et al. 2023; Fisher and Geiselman 2010). Because the knowledge of best practices and protocols has been identified as directly relevant to robust investigative measures (Wells et al. 2020), background knowledge and policy recommendations provide an allied focus for this investigation of systemic variables affecting eyewitness testimony.

By the end of the 19th century, the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony had already been demonstrated (Bartol and Bartol 2018), with further research from organizations like the Innocence Project flourishing in the last quarter of the 20th century (Soukara et al. 2018; Innocence Project 1989–2020). Wrongful convictions populated data provided by the Innocence Project as it re-examined hundreds of convictions through DNA testing and other scientific advancements. Most wrongful convictions were specifically due to false identifications (Soukara et al. 2018). Similarly, in the United States National Registry of Exonerations, 3784 individual exonerations have been identified since 1989. Approximately one third involved wrongful convictions based at least in part on mistaken witness identifications (The National Registry of Exonerations 2025).

Among witness examinations, other evidence has shown that common mistakes arise from leading questions (Loftus and Palmer 1996; Sharman and Powell 2012; Gous and Wheatcroft 2020), misleading questions, frequent interruptions, adherence to a predetermined list of scripted questions, and the inappropriate sequencing of questions (Wells et al. 2006; Soukara 2020; Fisher et al. 1987). Moreover, even when investigative officials are familiar with best practices, they fail to use them appropriately (Wright and Alison 2004; Griffiths et al. 2011).

Snook et al.’s (2012) Canadian team examined 80 cases from suspect interrogations to show that 1% of questions were open-ended, while closed questions and probing questions accounted for 40% and 30% of the total. Only 14% of suspects were asked to recount events surrounding the alleged crime. Fisher et al.’s (1987) classic analysis of 11 videotaped eyewitness statements conducted by eight experienced police officers in Florida identified several related variables. Frequent interruptions, adherence to a predetermined list of questions, and asking questions at the wrong time all affected eyewitness recollection. Wells et al. (2006) offered an illustrative case in which a witness providing information about one perpetrator was interrupted with questions about another (Wells et al. 2006, p. 55).

The prevalence of interruptions and closed-ended questions is a theme internationally. Norwegian researchers Myklebust and Alison (2000), examined 11 interviews with children to show that police officers used closed-ended questions in this population as well. Ineffective strategies included numerous instructions and inadequate time to respond. Likewise, Wright and Alison (2004) demonstrated that, among Canadian eyewitnesses, police officers interrupted more often than necessary and favored closed-ended questions.

Temporal gaps matter as well. The time interval between an alleged crime and the witness interview affects the amount of information recalled across a number of investigations (Ebbesen and Rienick 1998; Wixted et al. 2016).

Methodological errors in eyewitness identification have also received considerable attention as system or environmental variables (Wells and Olson 2003). Just as for the eyewitness interview, the time between the crime and the identification of a suspect affects the quality of information. Sauer et al. (2010), for example, concluded that identification that took place longer after exposure to a suspect was accompanied by lower identification rates and greater (false) confidence on the part of witnesses.

Research on the effectiveness of the common “mug book” for suspect identification has shown that mug book size (Mcallister et al. 2003), as well as how suspects are presented in it, affects witness credibility (Stewart and McAllister 2001; Bayer 2002). Moreover, prior mugshot exposure decreases witness accuracy at a subsequent lineup (Deffenbacher et al. 2006). For known suspects, “show-ups” (single suspect identifications) remain the most common forms of eyewitness identification (Dysart and Lindsay 2007), and the least reliable (Cicchini and Easton 2010). The presentation of a single suspect, often handcuffed at the scene of the alleged crime, renders show-ups highly suggestive (Clark and Godfrey 2009; Dysart and Lindsay 2007). Show-ups consequently demonstrate a significantly greater number of false identifications than line-ups (Yarmey et al. 1996). Line-up construction itself affects witness identification, from the instructions given to the characteristics of the individual conducting the line-up, and the presentation of line-up members to the witness (Gronlund and Carlson 2013; Fitzgerald et al. 2013; Steblay and Wells 2020; O’connell and Synnott 2009; Mayer et al. 2024; Nyman et al. 2024).

The familiarity of investigating officers with eyewitness best practices differs significantly depending on the context: gaps in training and use of appropriate techniques are the literature’s most cited deficits. According to Hyman Gregory et al. (2023), although some best practice techniques are implemented by U.S. police interviewers, considerable training is still required for the collection and documentation of evidence. Similarly, in the UK, trained investigators may demonstrate awareness of interviewing methods but apply them inconsistently (Griffiths et al. 2011; Gabbert et al. 2026). Correspondingly, research with professionals conducting front-line investigative interviews in Ontario, Canada, has shown that less than a third of accepted techniques were used in adult witness examinations. In fact, there was little consensus on the utility of a number of specific techniques (Roberts and Cameron 2015). In addition, when it comes to interviewing vulnerable witnesses (and despite their familiarity with guidelines for effective interviewing), police officers identify a series of pressures they face while attempting to obtain reliable testimony (Hanway and Akehurst 2018).

Non-western nations demonstrate similar gaps, both in their familiarity with best practices and in training. In Malaysia, for example, Chung et al. (2022) found that many police officers had limited knowledge of best practice eyewitness interviewing. Moreover, as pointed out by Malik (2022), the lack of proper training was an essential defect in Pakistani investigations. This echoed the results of a study of Indonesian police officers (Sumampouw et al. 2022). In Greece itself, no empirical information is available regarding eyewitness examinations. Protocols have been created for the examination of vulnerable witnesses and specifically for sexually abused children, but outcomes have not been reported (Themeli and Ferra 2024). Only basic guidance supports the training of junior police officers by more experienced investigators (Miniati 2018).

The broad acceptance of inappropriate police interviewing practices results in inaccurate witness testimony and miscarriages of justice, leading to the adoption of models that promote the reliability of witness testimony (Clarke and Milne 2016). Recently, the development of The Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering (2021), or the “Méndez Principles”, represents an initiative for the creation of a universal protocol identifying standards for effective witness and suspect interviewing (Walsh et al. 2025). Based on the principle of respect for the interviewees’ rights and an extensive body of scientific research, the “Méndez Principles” are centered on rapport-based interviewing. The utility of rapport-based interviewing in promoting collaboration and information gathering has been highlighted by various research findings that support more extensive and accurate information (Oxburgh and Ost 2011; Nahouli et al. 2021; Bettens et al. 2025). It has been highly effective in interviewing vulnerable witnesses in particular (Milne and Bull 2003; Bull 2018; Waterhouse et al. 2023). Over 50 nations have adopted or partially adopted the Mendez Principles (IMPLEMENDEZ 2023–2027), with promising results (Walsh et al. 2025). Legislative adjustments and operationalization may nonetheless be necessary for their adoption in the special conditions of different jurisdictions (Demirden 2023; Pavelek and Solodov 2024).

The opinions of legal professionals about eyewitness examination and suspect identification are consequently primary to advancing investigative practices. Indeed, Greek legal professionals are exemplary of non-Napoleonic code nations with pluralistic social components, namely, European, Balkan, and Mediterranean influences. Drawing from the inquisitorial tradition and rooted in continental Europe, the Greek judicial system relies heavily on investigative processes to gather evidence for trial. Greece is therefore a useful example for studying witness interviewing in evolving Western judicial systems. Through the opinions of judicial professionals, the current investigation highlights common errors of witness examination, both in witness interviewing and suspect identification. The analysis concludes with policy recommendations based on the findings.

Eyewitness Testimony in Greece

The modern Greek legal system is heavily influenced by German and French legal traditions and therefore resembles many continental European countries (Billis 2017). The criminal process is inquisitorial, with its main objective to uncover the truth through an active judicial process. Matters of procedure are described in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Κώδικας Ποινικής Δικονομίας), issued in 1950 and amended several times since its inception (Lambropoulou 2005). Consequently, the criminal process consists of a pretrial phase for investigation and prosecution, and a subsequent trial phase.

The Greek Criminal Justice System (GCJS) applies a recognizable scheme of witness examination that combines direct questioning and free narration (Seferidis 2018). In criminal proceedings, witnesses are asked to provide information about events with which they have a direct connection (Triantafyllou 2014). General guidelines for the conduct of eyewitness examination are dictated by the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure (GCCP). Testimony occurs under a court summons and is mandatory. During the examination, questions may not relate to personal opinions; witnesses are treated as fact witnesses. An exception applies in cases where a specific viewpoint clarifies events or the witness can provide an expert description. These exceptions must nonetheless be connected to the specific event covered by the testimony (Article 223). Moreover, the GCCP makes provisions for witnesses not to be interrupted unless they stray from the subject. When clarifications or further information are required, questions are submitted to witnesses after their testimony has been completed. Leading questions are prohibited, and witnesses are not obliged to testify about facts that may incriminate them. Overall, if a witness is asked to identify suspects or objects, they must do so with the greatest possible accuracy (Article 224, par. 2; Article 225).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethics

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Supervising Committee Responsible for Ethics of the [anonymized] (date of approval 20 January 2022). Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous. An informed consent document was administered along with the study questionnaire, including information about the objective of the study, the use and dissemination of the results, and the identity and contact information of the local researchers. The consent process included guarantees of anonymity and confidentiality. All necessary technical and organizational measures provided by the General Data Protection Law (GDPR) were applied for data storage. To avoid disclosure of participants’ identities, only anonymized results were retained and published. To recruit police, investigators filed a specific application for conducting research with the Hellenic Police Headquarters prior to obtaining informed consent.

2.2. Research Team

The research team comprised psychologists and psychiatrists with a specialty in forensic and criminal psychology and specific training in qualitative research methods.

2.3. Survey Design

A semi-structured questionnaire was created to gather demographic characteristics (age, specialization, studies, employer, and years of work experience), with open- and closed-ended responses. Respondents reported factors that affect the testimony of eyewitnesses, their knowledge of examination methods, and recommendations for correcting methodological errors. Survey questions included the following:

Q.1. Can you identify any factors that affect eyewitness testimony concerning the methodologies used by the investigative authorities: (i) In the interviewing of the witnesses? (ii) In the identification of suspects?

Q.2. Are you familiar with best practices concerning eyewitness examination? (Yes, No). If so, which?

Q.3. Would you like to make any suggestions for tackling the methodological errors you identified in the procedures followed by the Criminal Justice System?

2.4. Sample

Eighty-seven legal professionals participated in the study, with approximately 50% employed in the Greek Justice System (GJS) for over 10 years (

Table 1. Sample Demographics.

		Age Range			Work Experience (Years)
Specialty	N	25–35	36–46	47–65	1–10	11–21	21–30
Investigating judges and prosecutors	34	-	18	16	8	19	7
Expert witnesses	26	16	6	4	20	4	2
Investigating police officers and psychologists–forensic interviewers	14	6	5	3	3	7	4
Criminal trial lawyers	13	4	9	-	12	1	-
Total	87	26	38	23	44	30	13

). For participant recruitment, a combination of purposive and snowball methods was applied:

(i)

A request to conduct research was submitted to the Hellenic Police. After approval, the questionnaire was distributed internally to the relevant directorates. The officers who accepted sent completed questionnaires directly to the lead researcher.

(ii)

Seven interview visits were conducted at the Athens Court of First Instance (Protodikeio Athinon), the primary venue for civil and administrative disputes in the Greek capital. (Judicial officers work in shifts so the repeated visits were necessary to include as many as possible.) Participants provided informed consent and were administered the questionnaire.

(iii)

Expert witnesses, and lawyers, were recruited by telephone calls to the bar association and by searching the public directory of all expert witnesses for criminal court cases. The method of snowball sampling was also applied wherever respondents named other participants who fulfilled inclusion criteria.

Participants were selected through purposive sampling based on their relevance to witness examination (Patton 2002). Both employees and non-employees in the CJS were selected to achieve a multifaceted approach to the topic and reduce any biases related to the participants’ employment in the CJS or complaints filed against the system from non-employees. Based on this process, we included seven participant groups consisting of the following: Investigating judges, prosecutors, judges, expert witnesses, investigating police officers, psychologists–forensic interviewers, and criminal trial lawyers.

To estimate minimum sample size for each of the participating groups, we followed seminal guidelines provided by Wutich et al. (2024). According to our research purpose to identify a high percentage of themes, namely, systemic errors in witness examination, we decided to include a minimum of 12 participants in each group (Wutich et al. 2024). Relevant research has shown that “theme (or data)” saturation can be achieved within 9–12 interviews (Guest et al. 2006). Although we did not meet this requirement for psychologists–forensic interviewers (only two were included because of poor access to this new category), the total number of national personnel is only four because it is a recent development in Greece. Due to low homogeneity in the group of expert witnesses (psychologists, psychiatrists, and criminologists), we included a minimum of seven participants from each specialty to reach an N of 26.

2.5. Data Analysis

Open-ended responses were examined by means of thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is a systematic approach for analyzing research material through identifying, organizing, and interpreting patterns with common meaning (Braun and Clarke 2006). Based on the established steps provided by Braun and Clarke (2006), the analysis included the following:

(i)

Repeated readings of interview data to familiarize investigators with the research material;

(ii)

Assigning codes to text segments;

(iii)

Sorting the codes into potential themes;

(iv)

Reviewing and refining themes. For reliability, a peer review strategy was applied during the coding process (Merriam 2009).

2.6. Coding

Two coders (E.A. and S.N.) analyzed survey responses. Coders developed a preliminary codebook based on key concepts identified in the review of the existing literature. Each code was defined in detail and conceptually distinct. Data analysis was conducted manually. With the initial Codebook, researchers independently reviewed responses and coded the research material. Only one code was assigned to a particular text segment. The codes along with the corresponding text segments were uploaded to an Excel spreadsheet, and Excel filters were used to assess the coders’ agreement. Manual comparison indicated a high coder congruence in identified text segments related to judicial system errors. Due to the iterative manual conduct of the analysis, inter-coder reliability was not estimated. Differences that emerged in coding were resolved by discussion among the investigators. The codes were grouped into overarching themes, which were further reviewed against the research material and finalized.

3. Results

3.1. Demographics

Of the participants, 39% (Ν = 34) were judicial officials, investigating judges, and prosecutors and 16% (Ν = 14) were police investigators and psychologists who conduct interviews in a program for sexually abused children (Article 35, Law 4640/2019). The remainder consisted of related legal professionals, namely criminal attorneys (Ν = 13) and expert witnesses. Experts included psychiatrists, psychologists, and criminologists (Ν = 26). Most participants working in the GCJS (Ν = 37, 43%) reported having work experience greater than 10 years, while most other professionals (N = 32, 37%) reported being less experienced (1 to 10 years).

3.2. Themes

3.2.1. System Variables Affecting Eyewitness Testimony

Thematic analysis identified six systemic themes related to eyewitness interviews and five related to suspect identification. Participants’ quotes are mentioned in each theme.

• Witness interviewing

• Inappropriate questioning

Most references to eyewitness interviewing (30 responses) focused on inappropriate questioning techniques as well as the type of language used during the interview. Responses highlighted the use of leading, closed-ended, and incomplete questions, confusing wording, rigid language, complex, ambiguous, and incorrect questions, and a failure to clarify the issues to be proven.

“Leading and misleading questions, as a way of ‘fishing’ for information, can confuse the witness’s memory. The introduction of information, even if true (e.g., the color of clothing, breath, etc.), can create many false memories.”

(Police investigator)

“The manner of asking questions. The relevance of each side’s questions.”

(Prosecutor)

“Failure to ask specific, substantive questions relating to the matter at hand.”

(Prosecutor)

“Use of language that the witness does not understand.”

(Judicial officer)

“Confusingly formulated questions, without a clear time frame.”

(Prosecutor)

“Incorrect questions are being submitted to the witness by judges and lawyers.”

(Criminal lawyer)

2.

Delays

Twenty-five respondents identified significant delays between an alleged incident and the date the witness was summoned to testify. Delays in the witness examination were reported 30% of the time by professionals with more than 10 years’ experience.

“The long time between the alleged event and the date of the examination (minor witnesses of sexual abuse). During this period, there is a normal loss of memory traces, a decline in memory in recalling peripheral information (details: where, when, how, etc.), discussions, and influences from older individuals who may unintentionally or intentionally contaminate the witnesses’ memory.”

(Psychologist–forensic interviewer)

“The period of time in which witnesses are called to testify is very far removed from the criminal event.”

(Prosecutor)

3.

Infrastructure (including procedure)

Fourteen respondents identified topics related to bureaucracy and infrastructure: namely, repeated questioning, time pressure (due to a suspect being in flagrante delicto), unsuitable premises, noisy environment, lack of an interpreter, lack of psychological support for witnesses, and the absence of guarantees for eyewitness safety.

“Time pressure, justified in part due to the nature of the crime.”

(Prosecutor)

“Repeated questioning of witnesses.”

(Psychologist–forensic interviewer)

“Incorrect locations for depositions. Failure to take depositions at the right time. Allowing eyewitnesses sufficient time to talk to each other results in the falsification of facts.”

(Criminal lawyer)

“Significant delays in the preliminary investigation and inquiry process due to bureaucracy and, in some cases, insufficient staff.”

(Criminal lawyer)

“The presence of other people during the testimony, beyond those required by law.”

(Police investigator)

“The setting is improper for witness questioning. A lot of noise too many disruptions from passers-by).”

(Police investigator)

4.

Interruptions

Twelve participants identified interruptions due to increased workload (i.e., rushing the interview) or due to the general practices followed by investigating officers. These were principally interruptions for clarification.

“Frequent interruptions and simultaneous involvement in other cases.”

(Police investigator)

“Interruption and failure to follow the logical flow of the witness’s testimony to verify or refute the credibility of their testimony.”

(Judicial officer)

“The witness must first complete his account of the events and not be interrupted by questions, which, although explanatory, may confuse or disorganize him, so that, on the one hand, the facts are presented exactly as he perceived them and not as he would have perceived them if he had been called to examine them afterwards and, on the other hand, his credibility can be verified.”

(Judicial officer)

5.

Routinized questions

Eleven respondents described interview elements that could be categorized as routinized, scripted, or on autopilot: adherence to a predetermined list of questions, haste, lack of engagement, lack of preparation, and lack of specialized training.

“How complainants and defendants are received and treated, i.e., whether they are listened to with indifference, boredom, distrust, or bureaucracy.”

(Criminal lawyer)

“Carelessness, haste, lack of knowledge of the facts and circumstances on the part of the investigating officers.”

(Police investigator)

“Automation of the process of taking witness statements, lack of attention to detail, lack of experience of the investigating officer, and failure to recognize important elements of the case in question.”

(Police investigator)

“The stereotypical justification of important elements by investigating officers.”

(Criminal lawyer)

“Preliminary investigators are not always properly trained, with the result that witness statements are sometimes incomplete and not objective.”

(Judicial officer)

6.

Trust

Ten participants pointed out the failure to make the witness feel safe, especially because of the pressure exerted by the investigation. Two officials specifically noted that witnesses fear that they will answer incorrectly or that they will be prosecuted for inaccurate statements.

“Aggression during the process of deposition.”

(Expert witness)

“The submission of questions in a harsh tone.”

(Prosecutor)

“Pressure during questioning. Creating a climate that is threatening for the witness or an examination space in which the witness does not feel comfortable can hinder the process of recalling information difficult.”

(Expert witness)

“Causing stress during testimony.”

(Judicial officer)

“Cold atmosphere, formality.”

(Criminal lawyer)

“The witness feared that they might be prosecuted.”

(Judicial officer)

“The fear that they will answer wrong due to the intensity of the process.”

(Prosecutor)

• Suspect Identification

• Infrastructure (including procedure)

Twenty-six participants stressed the lack of appropriate facilities for suspect identification: inadequate and outdated equipment, failure to comply with predefined protocols, poor line-ups, and outdated methods for identifying suspects.

“They don’t ask questions regarding specific characteristics of individuals (height, marks, accent, distinctive features).”

(Police investigator)

“Lack of appropriate facilities for identification, lack of proper preparation of investigative officers, and witnesses.”

(Police investigator)

“Poor recording of suspects’ characteristics in mug shots and failure to update them.”

(Criminal lawyer)

“Lack of technical equipment for storing and retrieving evidence for the identification of suspects.”

(Criminal lawyer)

“Poor lineups, outdated methods of suspect identification.”

(Criminal lawyer)

“When only one suspect is indicated (in person or a photograph) and not a group of people from which to choose, or when the suspect identified as the perpetrator has direct eye contact and awareness of their identification by the witness.”

(Appellate judge)

“The established protocols for suspect identification are not always followed, resulting in the incorrect identification of individuals.”

(Judicial officer)

“Showing the witness several people at the same time (e.g., in a line or photos of different people) in order to determine if one of them is the perpetrator. Showing photos of suspects that are very distinct, e.g., in terms of their shape.”

(Expert witness)

2.

Delays

Twenty participants identified the time between the alleged crime and the witness being called to identify the suspect, as well as the time until justice is served (i.e., the final outcome, verdict). This theme was mentioned preferentially by judicial officials and prosecutors (N = 13), as well as employees of the CJS with more than 10 years of experience (N = 9).

“A long period intervenes between the crime incident and the identification of the suspects.”

(Judicial officer)

“The time between the incident and the administration of justice.”

(Prosecutor)

“The delay in the process of identifying the suspects.”

(Expert witness)

3.

Negative emotions

Twelve participants referred to the inadequate assessment and management of a witness’s negative emotions. These specifically referred to fear stemming from coercion, eye contact with the suspect, and the potential for reprisal. These responses did not address general anxiety related to the process itself.

“Fear of reprisals.”

(Judicial officer)

“Fear of retaliation and lack of witness protection.”

(Expert witness)

“Anonymity, fear, pressure, threats.”

(Expert witness)

4.

Pressure

Twelve responses described the pressure exerted on witnesses to provide positive identification, either due to haste or to the procedure being followed.

“They do not remind them that it is not necessary to identify anyone, thus pressuring eyewitnesses to point out suspects.”

(Criminal lawyer)

“Pressure to select a specific person, limited time.”

(Expert witness)

“Pressure to make an identification.”

(Prosecutor)

“The witness must first be allowed to recall all possible information regarding the description, with helpful questions and without insisting on a single characteristic that matches the main suspect.”

(Judicial officer)

“Aggressive identification process.”

(Judicial officer)

“Lack of patience on the part of the police/judicial authorities.”

(Criminal lawyer)

“The pressure that the witness may feel through rapid-fire questions can lead to the indication of an error (or falsehood) knowingly by the individual, feeling responsible or even obliged to identify someone, no matter what.”

(Police investigator)

5.

Suspect description

Five participants referred to leading questions about the suspect’s appearance, which may serve as inappropriate guidance for the witness.

“The introduction of information regarding the description of the perpetrator, through leading questions or closed questions (e.g., he wore a hat, he had tattoos, he was overweight), carries the risk of false memories.”

(Police investigator)

“Targeted questions are often asked incorrectly. The examiner shows the examinee photographs of the perpetrator, and the examinee simply agrees/recognizes without being certain.”

(Police investigator)

3.2.2. Familiarity with Best Practices

Judicial officers and police investigators were more familiar with best practices than other professionals (i.e., criminal lawyers and expert witnesses). Altogether, 14 of 87 respondents reported being familiar with the best practices of witness examination. Among the three professional groups, police investigators reported being more informed than judicial officers and the rest of the sample, although the percentages were relatively low in all groups (see

Table 2. Familiarity with best practices.

	Total Participants (N = 87)	Total Judicial Officers (N = 48)	Investigating Police Officers, Psychologists-Forensic Interviewers (N = 14)	Investigating Judges, Prosecutors (N = 34)	Criminal Lawyers, Expert Witnesses (N = 37)
Familiarity with best practices	14	10	5	5	4
% within category	16.1	20.8	35.7	14.7	10.8
% of total	16.1	11.5	5.7	5.7	4.6

). In consent interactions, certain respondents pointed out that the examination of Greek witnesses is governed by the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 209–225). These provide the general context of investigations rather than specific best practices (also see above “Eyewitness Testimony in Greece”).

3.2.3. Recommendations

According to the thematic analysis, the participants’ recommendations to overcome methodologic or systemic errors were organized into four themes: Legislation/procedure (N = 33), training (N = 14), techniques (N = 13), and infrastructure (N = 10) (see

Table 3. Recommendations for witness interviewing and suspect identification.

What Suggestions Can Specialists Make to Tackle the Problems of Eye-Witness Examination and Suspect Identification?	Overall (N = 87)	Interrogation Officers (N = 14)	Other Professionals (N = 39)
Themes	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)
Legislation/procedure	33 (37.9)	7 (50.0)	17 (43.6)
Training	14 (16.1)	5 (35.7)	4 (10.3)
Techniques	13 (14.9)	3 (21.4)	7 (18.0)
Infrastructure	10 (11.5)	2 (14.3)	5 (12.8)

).

• Legislation/Procedure

Most participants (N = 33) focused on issues of legislative and procedural change, with the central recommendation being that witnesses be examined as close to an alleged crime as possible. Less frequent responses focused on measures to assess the quality of testimony (N = 3), psychological support for investigative staff and witnesses (N = 4), and refraining from prosecuting witnesses in cases of domestic violence and the sexual abuse of minors (N = 2).

“Ensuring the vitality of testimony by examining it close to the time of the incident.”

(Judicial officer)

“Immediate summons for examination within 24 h of the incident.”

(Judicial officer)

“There should be psychological support from the relevant state services, especially in serious criminal offenses, but also scientific training for the judges involved, prosecutors, and investigative officials in general, to understand the emotional impact on eyewitnesses.”

(Criminal lawyer)

“In any case, it would be good to examine the quality of the testimony, taking into account all the characteristics of eyewitness and all the circumstances under which the incident occurred.”

(Expert witness)

“In cases of complaints/statements by third parties (non-victims) against parents/spouses for physical and sexual abuse, the witness should be immune from prosecution. On the contrary, withdrawal or failure to report out of fear of false accusation and perjury by the witness.”

(Judicial officer)

2.

Training

Fourteen respondents advocated strengthening the training of investigating officers by introducing new courses, conducting specialized seminars on models for proper witness examination, and familiarizing pre-trial and investigative officials with contemporary research data.

“Greater emphasis on teaching investigative techniques in all fields related to preliminary investigation and investigative officers, particularly in the Hellenic Police Force (Elliniki Astynomia) (Police Academy and Officers’ Academy, but also Special Guards’ School, who are often new arrivals and gather information. Introduction of Forensic Psychology in Greece in general and in particular in higher education institutions, as well as in the Judicial System.”

(Police investigator)

“Better training of active investigative officers in taking sworn statements from eyewitnesses.”

(Police investigator)

“Training in investigative techniques (e.g., classification/formulation of questions, defusing/achieving concentration of the examinee, etc.).”

(Police investigator)

“Use the results of this study (and other similar studies) to train judicial officials and lawyers.”

(Judicial official)

“Educational seminars should be held for officials in the criminal justice system, with an emphasis on police officers, who are the most numerous group. They are usually the ones who examine eyewitnesses.”

(Police investigator)

3.

Techniques

Thirteen participants focused on the proper conduct of the examination, from the attitude of the interrogator and the content of questions to the manner questions are asked.

“Creation of witness examination protocols (general type/specific categories).”

(Police investigator)

“Witnesses should be examined patiently, without targeted questions and shortly after the incident, but not necessarily immediately after it.”

(Police investigator)

“Questions should be asked in the correct chronological order, without interruptions between them.”

(Police investigator)

“Free narration, training of interrogators, appropriate configuration of the space, and prior briefing of the witness on the procedure.”

(Judicial officer)

4.

Infrastructure

Ten participants put forward the creation of specific spaces for examining witnesses, upgrading examination equipment, using digital media, and recording initial testimony audio-visually.

“The examination of eyewitnesses must take place in a specific location without interference from external factors.”

(Police investigator)

“Recording of the initial statement on audiovisual media, summary trial of the case.”

(Judicial officer)

“The authorities (police) should be provided with recent photographs of the perpetrators during the identification stage. If necessary, eyewitnesses should be examined at the scene of the incident or using photographs and other digital media.”

(Judicial officer)

4. Discussion

The core objective of this research was to pinpoint the system variables that affect witness examination in the Greek Criminal Justice System. Although this is a critical element for the attribution of justice in Greece, national research on the field has been scarce. Moreover, considering the country’s inquisitorial tradition, Greece is a useful example for studying witness interviewing in evolving judicial systems.

Our key findings suggest that prominent barriers to robust witness interviewing included inappropriate questioning techniques and wording, frequent interruptions, scripted questions, and failure to develop a sense of trust. In identifying suspects, participants highlighted inadequate compliance with defined protocols, inadequate management of negative emotions, pressure on witnesses to make positive identifications, and introduction of improper guidance about the alleged perpetrator. Lengthy delays before the eyewitness interview and a lack of infrastructure were core influences alongside a lack of familiarity with best practices.

The weaknesses of eyewitness interviewing and suspect identification are as evident in this Greek judicial study as in the forensic literature broadly. Because empirical evidence is limited, however, the specific investigative barriers to robust criminal investigation bear review. Inappropriate questioning techniques and wording are stressed here by experienced legal professionals, underscoring their related recommendations for training and best practices. The corresponding lack of familiarity with best practices in this experienced group is telling for systems with similar barriers to legitimate eyewitness examination. Training for senior professionals and leadership would consequently be a critical addition to any educational initiatives across judicial systems.

The combination of an engaged, personalized approach, timely interviews, adequate preparation, and the development of trust unites a number of responses into an outline for improved use of eyewitness testimony. The implications for unjust outcomes are widely evident in the forensic literature (Wise et al. 2009; Fisher et al. 1987; Wells et al. 2006), as numerous commentators and policy analysts note that improvisation and haste should not outstrip evidence-based practice (Köhnken et al. 1999; Memon et al. 2010).

The critiques of more aggressive techniques align well with the adoption of the UN’s Mendez Principles and their focus on rapport building and accuracy. Moving toward standards like these mitigates traditionally aggressive and inconsistent measures while protecting civil rights among vulnerable groups. The current analysis reinforces the justification for advancing the nature and conduct of humane and accurate witness interviewing. More effective implementation of the Mendez Principles would entail mapping the Principles against the properties of existing jurisdictions and initiating open dialogue with first-line professionals in each Mendez country.

In this investigation, the identification of suspects is especially affected by delays, confirming a challenge previously identified in Greece (Psychogyios 2024). It is a critical group of responses linked to the willingness of witnesses to report a crime (Anitsi 2026) and to a general lack of trust in judicial institutions (Sourdin and Burstyner 2016; Yoon 2015). Solutions to this investigative barrier should be the focus of future research and monitoring as procedural and legislative adjustments seek to address it. Adequate staffing, education, re-training, use of technology, appointment of more judges, and decongesting the courts are traditional approaches with specific effects on staffing, criminal investigations, and the court docket (Papaioannou and Karatza 2018). Reducing delays and serving justice can have related salutary effects on staff burnout, costs, and public confidence in the system (Dianoesis 2019).

Responses overall highlight the lack of established protocols as well as a lack of robust infrastructure. In terms of protocols identifying suspects, errors that arise specifically from exerting pressure on witnesses violate best practices and can result in false confessions or wrongful conviction (Gronlund and Carlson 2013).

Respondents similarly stressed the inadequate provision of psychologically safe spaces for suspect identification and for managing negative emotions. Emotional elements like fear and anxiety appear inherent to judicial systems internationally (Van Zyl 2011). The frequent identification of deficits in technical and material infrastructure appears to extend from inappropriate spaces to outdated procedures. These are factors crucially linked to mistakes in identification across the globe (Wells et al. 2020).

The key contributions and innovation of the study lie in the characteristics of the sample, the correspondence between Greek findings and other nations, and the implications for other countries. Moreover, the study included interviews with professionals conducting witness examination from different perspectives, either as interrogative officials, criminal lawyers, or expert witnesses. The varied opinions of judicial professionals promote a broad awareness of the Greek system’s deficits and its parallels to other systems. Common administrative and procedural gaps are evident worldwide, from the misuse of language and technique to the absence of proper infrastructure and procedure. Consequently, Greece’s empiric, cultural, legal, and geographic reflections of European jurisprudence support its usefulness as a vital setting for studying eyewitness examination.

4.1. Recommendations

Recommendations by judicial professionals highlight the need for protocols based on evidence-based practices. For suspect identification in particular, responses reflect in part the updated guidelines of the Executive Committee of the American Psychology-Law Society of the American Psychological Association (Wells et al. 2020). They recommend a number of interventions that Greek respondents appear to endorse:

(1)

An interview should be conducted with the eyewitness before suspect identification;

(2)

A suspect must be entered in a lineup only if supported by evidence;

(3)

Neither the witness nor line-up administrator should know who the suspect is;

(4)

Only one suspect should be included in a lineup, while the characteristics of the fillers should not make the suspect stand out;

(5)

Specific instructions should be given to the eyewitness;

(6)

A statement of confidence in the identification should be solicited immediately after it occurs;

(7)

The procedure should be video recorded;

(8)

Identifications with the same suspect and the same eyewitness should be avoided,

(9)

Show-ups should only be conducted when necessary and should follow established guidelines.

Participant recommendations for robust protocols of witness interviewing offer the opportunity to incorporate well-established cognitive interview techniques (Home Office 2022; Köhnken et al. 1999; Memon et al. 2010). These (e.g., reconstruction, inclusive reporting, change in perspective, and alteration of timeline) have been found to affect eyewitness confidence and to enhance memory (Fisher and Geiselman 1992; Fisher et al. 2001; Granhag et al. 2004). Moreover, they are linked to a greater quantity of information (Shahvaroughi et al. 2022).

The effect of safety on eyewitness performance exposes another area for potential remediation: education and training of judicial officers. Emphasizing this barrier to accurate identification alongside training on witness safety consequently serves as a direct improvement of criminal investigations.

Retraining improves knowledge of the professional guidance surrounding eyewitnesses while mitigating negative influences on the accuracy of their testimony (e.g., fear and lack of systemic familiarity). The “DOs and DON’Ts” of examining and identifying suspects are already an established educational path for legal professionals (Soukara et al. 2018; Soukara 2020) and can be disseminated more widely.

4.2. Limitations

This investigation constitutes a qualitative approach to a phenomenon that has not been widely researched. Enlarging the sample into Europe and North America would verify findings which thus far support the limited literature across nations.

The study cannot be used as an independent measure of systemic errors because participants were specifically asked to identify them. Positive interventions may also be ignored because of the survey’s focus on errors. The focus on the city of Athens, a national capital, may not generalize to rural areas where resources and infrastructure are more limited. Furthermore, even though the findings underscore many of the errors evident in the criminological literature, the results may not generalize beyond this particular convenience sample.

5. Conclusions

Experienced professionals have identified specific shortcomings and made explicit proposals for improving critical aspects of criminal investigation. The findings highlight a series of errors in witness examination that are linked to any judicial system’s inherent difficulties, with delays being the most prominent example. Organizational issues like gaps in infrastructure and training were similarly prominent among respondents as among other national systems.

Although participants are often unfamiliar with specific practice models, their proposals are consistent with the fundamental guidance recommended by the literature. This effort consequently identifies an appropriate framework and elements of substantive and meaningful criminal investigation.

Studies following this can make use of the knowledge of seasoned legal respondents to improve Western legal systems. Respondents’ awareness of systemic deficits affects judicial policy and research on multiple levels, from failing to administer justice in specific cases (a micro consideration) to creating distrust in the institutions of justice themselves (macro). These sensibilities allow future efforts to concentrate more cogently on specific interventions like training or interview algorithms and explicit policy changes and infrastructure development.