Principle 2: Thorough Investigation also recommended that two investigators conduct an interview in the event that it is videotaped or recorded.198 For interviews with complainants and other witnesses, the number of interviewers generally “depends on the nature and the circumstances of the case.”199 States should carefully consider the “cultural context, gender and other elements of the case” to determine whether the situation warrants the presence of two investigators.200 For example, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, an investigator should not interview a witness of the opposite sex alone.201 Familiarity with language or dialect is also an important element to consider. Some situations might require the presence of additional individuals, such as a witness’s family member,202 an interpreter,203 or a field security officer.204 Bhutan’s Election Dispute Resolution Manual highlights the importance of this practice in certain cultural contexts. “In some villages, villagers may be apprehensive while talking to strangers,” the manual instructs investigators. “It may be necessary to have a local Midhey Gothrip [local spiritual leader]…as some witnesses in the rural areas will only talk to the investigators in their presence.” To maintain the appearance of fairness 198 Cf. William A. Geller, Nat’l Inst. of Justice, Videotaping Interrogations and Confessions 8 (1993), https://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles1/‌Digitization/‌139962NCJRS.pdf (“Most commonly, two detectives are present during the videotaping of a suspect’s interview.”). 199 Uniform Guidelines 2009, supra note 25, ¶ 37, n. 8. (clarifying that “interviews of subjects should be conducted by two investigators,” but “for interviews of complainants, witnesses and other persons, the number of interviewers depends on the nature and the circumstances of the case”); accord UNDP Investigation Guidelines 2010, supra note 173, ¶ 11.1 ] (“Interviews of investigations should be conducted by two investigators. With respect to interviews of investigation participants, the number of interviewers depends on the nature and the circumstances of the case.”). 200 UNDP Investigation Guidelines 2010, supra note 173, ¶ 11.1; cf. Christopher Haney & Andrea Roller, Duff & Phelps, Investigative Interview Techniques 3 (2012), http://www.duffandphelps.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Services/DLMC/DP122031_ ‌Investigative‌%20‌Interview%20Tech_v01.pdf (“To maximize rapport, consider which personnel should conduct the interview. Demographic factors, such as age or sex, may be appropriate considerations as well as potential similarities in background or socioeconomic status.”). 201 See Canadian Investigators’ Manual Ch. 11, supra note 168, at 2; cf. Hoffman, supra note 180 (“If an interviewer is meeting with someone of the opposite sex having a witness [observer] of the same gender as the subject is a good idea.”). 202 See UNDP Investigation Guidelines 2010, supra note 173, ¶ 11.2 (the UNDP Investigation Guidelines allow investigation subjects to request the presence of an immediate family member at their interview, provided that the family member “is not involved with the investigation and is readily available”). 203 The Uniform Guidelines for Investigations provide that “interviews may be conducted in the language of the person being interviewed, where appropriate using interpreters.” Uniform Guidelines 2009, supra note 25, ¶ 38. Several countries make accommodations for language barriers in the context of election investigation interviews. See, e.g., Canadian Investigators’ Manual Ch. 11, supra note 168, at 7 (directing the investigator to make arrangements “if the witness wishes to be interviewed in a language other than that of the interviewer”). 204 See UNDP Investigation Guidelines 2010, supra note 173, ¶ 11.2 (noting that investigators may request field security officers to attend the interview). 75