Inside Police Custody 2 A number of general problems with access to case materials were identified by the research. First, where the law provides the relevant authorities with a discretion to withhold materials, they generally interpret this power broadly. This was reported to be the case in Lithuania, Slovenia and Bulgaria. Second, in a number of countries, requests to access the case material results in a lengthy delay before access is granted. However, this was not the case in Austria where, if a suspect has a lawyer, they are generally able to inspect the case files prior to interrogation; and in Hungary the law provides that access must be provided at a time and in a manner that enables the defence to prepare and, in any event, at least one hour before the commencement of a relevant hearing. A third problem is one of cost. Generally, copies of documents have to be paid for, although in some countries such as Austria and Italy, this is not the case if the suspected or accused person is in receipt of legal aid. Fourth, whilst under Article 7, the obligation to make available or provide access to relevant document and materials rests with the relevant authorities (since the obligation is placed on member states to ensure that they are made available or that access is provided), it appears that in many of the countries, the onus is placed on suspected or accused persons, or their lawyers, to make a request. The terms of Article 7 are such that relevant documents or materials should be routinely disclosed, rather than relying on a request being made. Finally, in the absence of a requirement, as exists in Hungary, to record what documents have been disclosed, suspected and accused persons, and their lawyers, cannot be sure that they have been able to see all of the relevant documents. This was explicitly referred to by lawyers in Austria, some of whom believed that the police keep ‘hand files’ which they do not disclose. 3.5 Conclusions The governments of all of the countries in the study have reported to the EC that they have introduced measures in order to transpose the requirements of the Directive on the right to information. However, the extent of the measures adopted, and their effect in practice varies considerably, although some common themes can be identified. The obligation to inform suspected and accused persons of their procedural rights, orally and/or in writing, is provided for in the law of all of the countries in the study. However, precision as to the timing of the provision of information, and circumstances in which such information is to be provided, is sometimes lacking. In the majority of countries, such as Lithuania, Slovenia, Italy, Spain, Hungary and Austria, the law provides that information on rights must be provided at the time of arrest or detention, or no later than the first interrogation. In Bulgaria, the law does state that a suspect must be informed of certain rights when they are deprived of their liberty, but given the general approach to the applicability of the Directive, this does not include all of the rights and information specified in the Directive. In Romania, whilst the law provides that a written notice of rights must be given to a suspect before ‘hearing’ them, it is not clear about precisely when and how this should be done. In those countries in which the law is relatively precise, this was reflected in the fact that notification of rights was generally provided as required, although researchers found instances where notification of rights was delayed. Furthermore, even in such countries, the provision of information about procedural rights was, in practice, often a formality, there being no obligation on the police to ensure that the suspect understands their rights, and little or no attempt to explain them. Most of the countries in the study have a standard letter of rights, although in Spain each force has the responsibility to devise its own, albeit with national guidance. In some countries, including Bulgaria and 40