The New Generation PAD was introduced in combination with training to ensure that police officers had the proper knowledge to navigate the system and that the highest professional standards of notification of rights was ensured.37 The new tool was welcomed by police officers, who reported it to be of great support in explaining the significance of the rights to suspects in an accessible language. The notification of rights is often perceived as very complex by police officers and is not something they are thoroughly trained for. The new system also introduced certain advantages for suspects and accused persons: • • The information on rights is no longer printed out and signed before questioning, as it was the frequent practice in the previous system. But it can be signed with the written transcript after questioning. This enables the police officer to go through the information with the suspect. Certain guarantees were put in place to ensure that circumventing notification rights is less likely, for example: - All mandatory notifications have to be made, answered and ‘ticked-off’ in the system, as the interview cannot otherwise be started. Additional rights (such as for children) are shown in form of a checklist to ensure that no information is forgotten. The sequence of the reporting varies to ensure that a circumvention is less likely, and it is not possible to always tick the boxes in the same order. The system records how long the notification of rights takes.38 How it came about Initially introduced in 2008, a new generation computer-assisted legal instructions tool was created in January 2018. Before the new system was in place, research showed that the practice by the police was to print the notification of rights prior to the interview and request the suspect to sign it. It was reported by some police officers that they also additionally provided oral explanations. It was equally noted that some of the suspects simply signed the document without reading it, making the notification procedure a rather formalistic procedure. Moreover, at least 59 different versions of the instructions on the rights existed which, in combination with other factors (e.g. the amount of interviews), led to great dissatisfaction on the part of the police about the complexity and length of the notification of rights.39 Additional training was not perceived as sufficient to overcome these challenges.40 It was also noted that the notification was complex and that details were difficult to understand for persons without a legal background.41 In 2008, a new legal basis was created for investigative proceedings in Austria. Criminal procedure was broadly reformed. The prosecutor was made head of the investigation, which became a collaboration between the prosecutor and the criminal police.42 Furthermore, additional changes were made to 37. Materials received from the police. 38. Materials received from the police. For all points mentioned above, see also Gerrit Zach, Nora Katona and Moritz Birk (2018). 39. Gerrit Zach, Nora Katona and Moritz Birk (2018) p 52ff. 40. Exchange with a representative of the police. 41. Richard Soyer and Alexia Stuefer in Helmut Fuchs and Eckart Ratz (eds), Wiener Kommentar StPO (rdb Manz 2022) § 50 StPO, point 19. 42. See Gerhard Donhauser, ‘Die StPO-Reform und der liberale Rechtsstaat‘ (2019) 4 JST 310; Rudolf Keplinger, ‘10 Jahre StPO Reform aus Sicht der Kripo‘ (2019) JST 4 324. However, some points of criticism were raised by lawyers and researchers. The role of the police in investigation procedures has been critically noted, with the argument that it 16 transpose EU Directives into national law.43 When the above mentioned amendments entered into force, the prosecution, judges as well as suspects and lawyers were expecting the police to provide suspects and accused persons with a (better) quality information about their rights.44 The call for change came also from within the police. The adoption of a new too was based on experiences gained in Liechtenstein. ln 2014, as part of an internal suggestion scheme, a police officer approached the Austrian Federal Ministry of Interior with a project idea aiming at introducing the already implemented and proven practice of Liechtenstein in Austria. Hence, the Austrian example shows how promising practices can be transferred between States and how learning from each other can benefit all persons involved in criminal proceedings. No legal change was required to implement the new tool, as the Austrian Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) already provides a sound legal basis for the right to information.45 While the new system cannot replace the individual police officers’ skills and commitment, it can provide a solid support for the notification of rights. Remaining challenges Despite the positive developments brought about with the New Generation PAD, there are several remaining challenges. The current system was developed by the police and is not publicly available, thus, its quality and impact on the understanding of suspects cannot be independently assessed. To ensure more transparency and improve the general public’s trust in the criminal justice system, the quality and accessibility of the notification of rights included in the system should be subjected to an external and independent evaluation and certified by easy language experts. In the New Generation PAD, some of the suspects in a most vulnerable position, such as suspects with psychosocial disabilities are not specifically mentioned and alternative formats for their needs (e.g. Braille, large print, pictograms, audio or video support) are currently not available. The project consultations also showed that additional links should be added to the system, for example, a list of lawyers and on-duty lawyers. This would enhance the efficiency and expedite the notification of lawyers. Further, lawyers, suspects and police officers agreed that the information in the Letter of Right is still too hard to understand, drafted in complicated, semi-academic language that is not accessible to many persons.46 gives an executive organ like the police too much power, and especially during a stage which is widely regarded as a crucial phase of criminal proceedings (Gerhard Donhauser (2019) 318f). Some scholars argue that the investigation is now a matter of collaboration between prosecutor and the police which eliminates checks and balances (Wilfried L Weh, ‘10 Jahre StPO Reform und die unterbliebenen Reformen‘ (2019) 6 JST 331. 43. Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings, OJ L 297, 1 and the Directive on children.. 44. Information provided by a representative of the police. 45. The fundamental legal provision regarding the information of the suspect is Austrian Criminal Code, Federal Law Gazette No. 60/1974 as amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 112/2015 (Austrian Criminal Code), art 50. 46. Gerrit Zach, Nora Katona and Moritz Birk (2018) p 56 and findings from the project consultations conducted in this project. 17