Introduction The right to information of suspects and accused persons in the criminal justice is of utmost importance as it functions as a ‘gateway right’. Under international standards, the right to information is anchored in three main obligations: the right to a fair trial, the right to liberty and security of persons and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. Its benefits are manifold. Under the aegis of the right to a fair trial, the right to information aims to enable suspects and accused to prepare an effective defence and guarantee a trial based on the principle of equality of arms. Whenever the suspect is deprived of liberty, the right to information further strengthens the protection afforded by the right to liberty and security of persons, which requires authorities to inform the persons of the reasons for the arrest and of any charge against them, thus functioning as an important guarantee against arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty. Last but not least, as maintained by the anti-torture bodies and especially the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the right to information – together with the rights of access to a lawyer, access to a medical expert, and notification of the detention to a third party – is a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment and plays a crucial role in preventing potential abuse during the early stages of custody, counting among the most effective safeguards to prevent torture.1 Thus, it is crucial that all people who are questioned truly understand their rights. This includes persons who have been arrested and/or are facing detention and have received a Letter of Rights drafted in plain and accessible language. Moreover, considering that arrested people may well too often be children, people with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, people experiencing poverty, people from racialised communities, migrants, people with addictions, authorities should be prepared to provide the information in a manner that is appropriate to their specific individual needs.4 In practice, however, legal language can often be complicated and difficult to understand, especially when read in the stressful context of police custody. This is especially worrying considering that according to general statistics a considerable portion of the general population has a low literacy level.2 Yet the implications of the decisions made at these preliminary stages may have far-reaching consequences. For example, research shows that people with intellectual disabilities are internationally over-represented in the criminal justice system at the police custody stage. It further points to a high rate of waivers of rights among persons with intellectual disabilities, as well as a lack of understanding of rights, and false confessions. Persons with intellectual disabilities can feel “frightened and confused”, which can be related to the lack of accessible information and challenges in communication.3 1. Richard Carver and Lisa Handley (eds), ‘Does Torture Prevention Work?‘ (Liverpool University Press 2016) p 633; CPT, ‘12th General Report‘, CPT/Inf (2002) 15, para 44; SPT, ‘Country Report: Romania‘ (2018) CAT/OP/ROU/1, para 29. 2. Statistics from Germany show that almost a third (32,6%) of the German population do not reach the reading competencies of B1 of the European reference framework see Anke Grotlüschen and others, ‘LEO 2018 – Leben mit geringer Literalität’ (University Hamburg 2019). The OECD Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies measured a low literacy level for 17,1% up to 28,3% of the adult population in Austria, Spain and Ireland, see Statistik Austria, ‘Schlüsselkompetenzen von Erwachsenen – Vertiefende Analysen der PIAAC-Erhebung 2011/12‘ (2014) <https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/publications/Schluesselkompetenzen_von_Erwachsenen._Vertiefende_ Analysen_der_PIAAC-Erhebung_2011_12.pdf> accessed on 5 December 2022; Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa, ‘PIAAC Programa Internacional para la Evaluación de Competencias de la Población Adult 2013 – Volumen I: Informe español‘ (2013) <https://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/dctm/inee/internacional/piaac/piaac2013vol1.pdf ?documentId=0901e72b81741bbc> accessed on 5 December 2022; An Phríomh-Oifig Staidrimh – Central Statistics Office, ‘PIACC Survey Results for Ireland‘ <https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Ireland.pdf> accessed on 5 December 2022. 3. Gautam Gulati and others, ‘The collaborative development through multidisciplinary and advocate consensus of an accessible notice of rights for people with intellectual disabilities in police custody‘ (2022) 83 IJLP p 2. <https://www. 8 sciencedirect.com/journal/international-journal-of-law-and-psychiatry/vol/83/suppl/C> accessed on 5 December 2022. 4. On children see Arts 37 and 40 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted on 20 November 1989, entered into force on 2 September 1990 (CRC); CRC Committee, ‘General comment No. 24 (2019) on children’s rights in the child justice system’ (2019) CRC/C/GC24; CPT, ‘Report to the Austrian Government on the visit to Austria carried out by the CPT from 22 September to 1 October 2014‘ CPT/Inf (2015) 34, para 26; poor implementation of their right to information has been comprehensively documented in the 2019 UN Global Study on Children deprived of Liberty, for an interactive version of the Study, see https://nochildbehindbars.com; on foreign suspects and accused persons, racialised communities and migrants see Fair Trials, ‘Racism in Europe‘s law enforcement and criminal justice systems – a non-exhaustive compilation of evidence and resources for policy makers‘ (2022) <https://www.fairtrials. org/articles/publications/racism-in-europes-law-enforcement-and-criminal-justice-systems/> accessed on 5 December 2022; Fair Trials, ‘Disparities and Discrimination in the European Union’s Criminal Legal Systems‘ (2021) <https:// www.fairtrials.org/articles/publications/disparities-and-discrimination-in-the-european-unions-criminal-legal-systems/> accessed on 5 December 2022; CPT, ‘Report to the Bulgarian Government on the visit to Bulgaria carried out by the CPT‘, CPT/Inf (2018) 15, para 36-37; on persons with disabilities see Arts 9 and 13 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted on 13 December 2006, entered into force on 3 May 2008; UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ‘International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities‘ (2020). 9