The practice of audio-visually recording police interviews remains poorly applied in the EU. The prevailing practice remains for the interviewing officer to produce a written record.30 Written records are typically not sufficiently detailed to test the reliability of the confession, whereas an AVR provides an independent corroboration of the suspected person’s declarations, secures reliable evidence for criminal proceedings and offers a key protection against false confessions and wrongful convictions.31 In those jurisdictions where AVR is incorporated in domestic law, the following factors have been found to hinder its effective implementation in practice. Limited scope of application. In many States, AVR only applies to children, witnesses and victims. In Belgium, for example, it is restricted to victims and witnesses who are children in the context of interviews relating to an exhaustive list of crimes.32 In Estonia, only interviews of underage witnesses must be audio-visually recorded where the evidence obtained is intended to be used at trial.33 In other countries, such as Ireland, it is limited to persons placed in detention (adults and children) but does not extend officially to suspected persons who are not deprived of their liberty (including children).34 In some jurisdictions, it is limited to certain type of offences. For example, in France, AVR only applies to persons who are suspected of the most serious offences,35 which deprives many people of that guarantee and raises concerns regarding the principle of equality before the law.36 Procedural difficulties in using the recording. In many countries, recordings are not automatically disclosed to the defence as part of the casefile. For example, in France, they are only made available to the defence in the event of a dispute with respect to the contents of the interview. If the suspected person wants to access the recording, they must apply for access to the instructing judge or the tribunal, who routinely refuse such applications.39 As a consequence, it is rare for defence counsel to rely upon AVRs. By way of example, in 2018, out of 200 cases handled by an instructing judge in one year, only one suspected person requested to see the recording.40 Lastly, recordings are destroyed after the expiry of a 5-year period from the start of the proceedings, which seriously limits the possibility to challenge violations of procedural rights since criminal cases usually last more than five years, especially where cases are appealed.41 Technical problems. In Portugal, although AVR of all police questioning is required by law, interviews are often not recorded in practice due to lack of means, as it is rare for police stations to be equipped with the necessary technology.37 In Romania, only some police services and specialised prosecutor’s offices (namely in anticorruption and anti-organised crime) have the necessary recording technical equipment.38 Conversations and abuse outside the interview room. AV recording is not an absolute safeguard against coercion and abuse, as these can still happen outside the interview room, for example upon arrest or during transfer to the police station.42 In Ireland, there were concerns amongst practitioners with regard to communications with the suspected person before the interviews – deals, promises, threats for instance – that are not recorded.43 However, although it is true that AVR are not sufficient to prevent undue pressure and ill-treatment before the interview, they still can reveal bruises, other signs of violence or hints of previous informal contacts between the police and the questioned person.44 30. ibid, p.27. 31. ibid, p.4. 32. ibid, p.22. 33. ibid, p.18. 34. ibid, p.19. 35. Except for children for which the interview must always be recorded. 36. Fair Trials, ‘PROCAM International Desk Report, audio-visual recording during interrogations’ (2018), p. 14, <https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/publications/audiovisual-recordings-during-interrogations/>.Fair Trials and Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Meeting report – Experience-sharing Event, p.5, where it is noted that when the law was introduced, the police indeed opposed to an extension of the requirement to AV record the questioning of all suspected or accused persons as it would have been too time consuming and there were not sufficient resources. 37. Fair Trials, ‘PROCAM International Desk Report, audio-visual recording during interrogations’ (2018), p. 16 <https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/ publications/audiovisual-recordings-during-interrogations/>. 38. ibid, p.17 (which was confirmed by Fair Trial’s regional survey). 14 39. ibid, p.14. 40. Fair Trials and Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Meeting report – Experience-sharing Event, p.5. 41. Fair Trials, ‘PROCAM International Desk Report, audio-visual recording during interrogations’ (2018), p. 14 <https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/ publications/audiovisual-recordings-during-interrogations/>. 42. For example, in X v Burundi, the CAT found that the complainant was tortured upon arrest as he was beaten kicked in the chest, ribs, back, and head while a weapon was pointed at his head. CAT, X v Burundi, No 553/ 2013, UN Doc CAT/ C/ 55/ D/ 553/ 2013, 10 August 2015. 43. Fair Trials, ‘PROCAM International Desk Report, audio-visual recording during interrogations’ (2018), p. 15 <https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/ publications/audiovisual-recordings-during-interrogations/>. 44. Fair Trials and Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Meeting report – Experience-sharing Event, p.5 and 12. 15