Inside Police Custody 2 The need for prompt interpretation presented challenges in all of the countries in the study. In all countries, an interpreter was rarely, if ever, present at the initial stages of detention, even though the need for interpretation had been identified, or was subsequently identified. A critical and widespread problem, identified above, concerns the difficulty the police face, even if they have identified the need for interpretation, in finding an interpreter willing and able to attend the police station at short notice. In Romania, amongst other countries, it was reported that the police sometimes resort to Google Translate in order to convey at least some information to the suspect. In Bulgaria, the police resort to informal contacts with interpreters, who are not necessarily competent in the relevant language; and interpreters complained that the police expected them to provide oral translation of the letter of rights free of charge. However, there are a number of other causes. In some countries, as already alluded to, the procedure for identifying the need for an interpreter is unregulated and/or unclear, and it may not become apparent that interpretation is needed until an interrogation has commenced. For example, in Lithuania, police interviewees told the researchers that arresting officers often do not record information about the need for interpretation and, as a result, this only becomes known during the first interrogation. In Spain, it appears to be the routine practice for the interpreter to be asked to attend only at the time that the lawyer is expected to attend. As a result, suspects who do not speak or understand the language will have little or no understanding of what is happening at the initial stages, including what they are suspected of, why they have been detained, and what their procedural rights are. At the same time, the police will sometimes continue with procedural acts relating to the investigation. In Hungary, for example, researchers found that the police sometimes carry out certain procedural acts before the arrival of an interpreter. In some of the countries in the study, such as Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia (where it is available in 23 languages in addition to Slovenian) and the region of Spain in which the research was conducted, translations of the letter of rights are available to the police, although they are not necessarily used. In Spain, for example, it was found that oral information regarding procedural rights was always given in Spanish, even where officers had ascertained that the suspect did not understand the language. Further, in the cases observed, whilst translations of the letter of rights were available in a range of languages, they were not used because, officers said, ‘the interpreter will explain it’. In some other countries, such as Bulgaria, no translations of the letter of rights are available, but interpreters were not called in to orally translate it. There is legal provision for remote interpretation in some of the countries, such as Lithuania and Austria, but facilities are not available in all police stations and in practice it is rarely used. 2.4 Interpretation of lawyer/client communications The Directive provides that, where necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the fairness of proceedings, interpretation must be made available for communication between a suspected or accused person and their lawyer in direct connection with any questioning or hearing during the proceedings or with the lodging of an appeal or other procedural application (Art. 2(2)). By Article 4, such interpretation must be free of charge (irrespective of outcome). If a suspect is to be interrogated by the police in connection with the suspected offence in respect of which they have been arrested or detained, there would be very few, if any, circumstances, where interpretation would not be necessary for the purpose of safeguarding fairness. In some of the countries in the study, such as Austria, Lithuania and Hungary, a right to free interpretation for lawyer/client communications is explicitly set out in the law. However, other countries, such as Slovenia and Bulgaria, have not faithfully transposed the Directive in this regard. In Slovenia, the law does not 24