Inside Police Custody 2 The introduction of the stand-by legal counselling service was an important step towards ensuring that suspected persons can consult with a lawyer during the investigation proceedings free of charge. Currently, the large majority of suspected persons are not legally represented during the investigation proceedings, even though the statements made before the police are highly relevant for the further course of the proceedings. Mandatory defence during the investigation proceedings is currently only envisaged in cases of deprivation of liberty for compulsory medical treatment, i.e. not even for juveniles. Despite the objectively growing number of requests for a stand-by lawyer, the absolute number of calls is still not very high. Potential hurdles discovered were the information on the stand-by legal counselling service given within the information about rights, the uncertainty regarding the fees charged, and in cases where a lawyer is assigned, the bureaucratic modalities of settling the bill. While police officials and defence counsels respect each other’s role in principle, the opinion that lawyers not only delay but impede the investigation proceedings was also voiced. The restricted role of the defence counsel during the investigation proceedings currently stipulated in § 164 para. 2 StPO leads to the remark voiced by police officials during the information about rights that ‘a lawyer is not allowed to do anything anyway’ – which, in turn, frequently leads to a waiver of the right of access to a lawyer. In practice, however, the handling of the role of the defence counsel is significantly less restrictive. The information about the right to remain silent is provided, yet the wording in the information sheet for detained persons leans towards a statement. In some cases, promises and threats regarding a statement were also made during the oral information about rights. A general aspect appearing worthy of consideration with regards to the transposition of the Directives was the situation of the interview itself. The interview usually takes place in the offices of the interviewing police officials. While it bears advantages to interview suspects or accused persons in these offices, police officials have pointed out the potential shortage of space during interviews involving several persons (e.g. translator and lawyer). In addition, other persons can disturb the interview – in one interview situation, seven additional persons were present in the room. Another aspect during the interview situation is the requirement for police officials to write a protocol while simultaneously conducting the conversation. Due to this requirement, police officials are partially positioned behind computer screens, making a direct conversation with the suspected person difficult. Potential violations of the rights of suspected persons, particularly with regard to the lack of legal representation, are hard to prove due to the lack of audio-visual records. To later point out inconsistencies in the protocol during trial seems more likely to lead to the accusation of incredibility against accused persons, which is why defence counsels report that they rather advise against it. Currently, potential violations hardly have legal consequences, because while the violation can be asserted, it often has no palpable effect on the proceedings. Recommendations 1. The existing processes of assigning interpreters in the investigative stage should, in consultation with experts, be further evaluated, to ensure that all persons listed in the new register of the Federal Ministry of the Interior meet transparent quality standards (regarding linguistic, cultural and professional competence). Even in cases where uncertified interpreters are consulted, quality standards should be guaranteed. Moreover, reform efforts should encompass the evaluation of interpreters, the enhancement of video interpretation services on the basis of ‘lessons learned’, the 64