Inside Police Custody 2 9. Cooperation of relevant stakeholders (ministries, police, bar association) with scientific and independent experts should be fostered for the development of evidence-based measures. Additionally, a view from the ‘outside’ can often give a positive impulse to existing organisational structures.   A.2 Bulgaria – Conclusions and Recommendations Major Issues The Bulgarian criminal justice system reveals serious discrepancies between the police detention and the Directives of the Roadmap for Strengthening Procedural Rights in the European Union. These discrepancies affect the three rights: the right to interpretation and translation, the right to information and the right of access to defence counsel and legal aid. That discrepancy is based on the currently dominating view among law-enforcement bodies, the prosecution and the official doctrine, that the Roadmap Directives are not applicable to police detention, and that detained persons do not have the status of suspects or accused who can benefit from the rights guaranteed in them. Accordingly, a considerable part of the directives has not been transposed in the Bulgarian system. There is a huge discrepancy in the transposition of the guarantees provided for under the directives, between the period after the filing of criminal proceedings and the arraignment of the person concerned as accused and the period of police detention, when that person is suspected of having committed a criminal offence. The non-transposing of the guarantees for one of the rights (e.g., the right to information) leads to violations of another right (e.g., the right of access to defence counsel). As the police detention is not recognized as part of the criminal proceedings, neither the legislation nor the practice secure compliance with the right of interpretation and translation in accordance with Directive 2010/64/EC. Interpretation during police detention is regulated by the MoIA as a possibility not as an obligation and only for the purposes of familiarizing the detainee with the grounds for police actions and with his/her rights. There is no mechanism for identifying whether the person who is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence speaks or understands Bulgarian. In practice, no interpretation is provided for the contacts with the detainee with his/her lawyer. Neither the detention order, nor the letter of rights is made available to the detained person in translation into a language that he/she understands. The remuneration of interpreters, where they are involved, is very low. This discourages professional interpreters to offer their services and prompts the police to use random persons with poor knowledge of the respective languages. The participation of an interpreter/translator in actions during police detention is not recorded in minutes. Non-compliance with the European law (Directive 2012/13/EC) exists also with regard to the right to information. The most serious problem is with the failure to inform the detainee about his/her right to remain silent. The law allows for a significant flexibility in the time of serving of the detention order. In fact, it is often served several hours after the person is in fact detained. The order does not inform the detainee of the factual basis for detention. The letter of rights is served too late after the detention order. It is not explained in simple language, adapted to the level of understanding of the person concerned. The process of familiarizing with it is rather formalistic and aims primarily at obtaining the detainee’s signature. The law does not regulate adequately the right of the person to keep a copy of the letter of rights with him/her during detention. 66