Inside Police Custody 2 (d) the information from which participation of the suspect has been deduced. Evidence from most of the countries in the study suggests that information about the reasons for arrest or detention is routinely given, although in some countries there appears to be some delay before it is provided. The major issue concerns the level of information that is provided. In Spain, observations conducted by the researchers indicated that the explanations of the reason for arrest are generally comprehensive. However, in many of the other countries, such as Slovenia, Austria, Hungary and Italy, the evidence suggests that the explanations given tend to be brief, stereotypical and/or vague. The ECtHR has found against Bulgaria in a number of cases because the detention orders noted only the relevant legal provisions, without describing the factual grounds for the detention. 3.3.2 Information about the suspected offence Article 6(1) of the Directive provides that member states must ensure that suspected or accused persons are promptly provided with information about the criminal act they are suspected or accused of having committed. This may be contrasted with Article 6(3), which provides that detailed information on the accusation must be provided no later than on submission of the merits of the accusation to a court. This suggests that the information that must be provided initially may be more limited but, as Article 6(1) states, the information must be provided in such detail as is necessary to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings and the effective exercise of the rights of the defence. This is particularly relevant because most suspects will be interrogated during the investigative process. Thus Recital 28 of the Directive states that the information required by Article 6(1) must be provided no later than the first official interview of the suspect by the police or other competent authority and, subject to any prejudice to the ongoing investigation, should include a ‘description of the facts, including, where known, time and place, relating to the criminal act that the persons are suspected or accused of having committed and the possible legal classification of the alleged offence… in sufficient detail, taking into account the stage of the proceedings when such a description is given, to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings and allow for an effective exercise of the rights of the defence’. Although the law of all the countries in the study requires that information about the suspected offence be provided to the suspect or accused person, there is variation regarding the timing of the duty to provide information, and the law in some countries is not in compliance with the requirements of the Directive. In Slovenia, the law provides that if, in the course of gathering evidence, the police have grounds to suspect that a person has committed an offence, they must inform the suspect of the offence of which they are suspected and the grounds for that suspicion. In Austria, the law provides that a suspect must be informed of the criminal act of which they are suspected without delay unless this would endanger the investigation, but does not regulate the extent of the information that must be provided. However, in Lithuania, the information does not have to be provided until the first interrogation, and whilst it is normally served at the beginning of the interrogation, in two of the observed cases, it was not served until the end. In Bulgaria, the law is such that information about the suspected offence only has to be provided once it is decided to arraign the accused, which is normally towards the end of the 24 hour period of police detention (during which time the police may conduct an ‘exploratory conversation’). Thus, the requirement that the information be provided promptly is not complied with in a number of countries. 37