Inside Police Custody 2 conditions regarding interpretation are fulfilled, is expressed in permissive rather than mandatory terms; there is no explicit provision regarding the right to interpretation; and no provision regarding record-keeping. In Romania, the criminal procedure code provides for a right to interpretation throughout criminal proceedings. It is clear, therefore, that the right to interpretation applies to persons who are the subject of police arrest. However, the law provides for ‘administrative leading to the police station’ which amounts to a de facto deprivation of liberty, which may last for up to 24 hours. The view taken by the Romanian authorities is that since this is an administrative, as opposed to a criminal procedure the rights associated with criminal procedure, including the right to interpretation and translation, do not apply (see, further, section 1.2.4 above). Again, in our view, the de facto situation is such that the Directive does apply to persons who are the subject of this procedure. There are further ways in which Romanian law does not fully respect the requirements of the Directive. In particular, interpretation for lawyer/client consultations is only free in cases where legal assistance is mandatory, and the right to (free) translation of essential document is limited to the indictment and the final decision. The restrictive approach to transposing the Directive into domestic law in Bulgaria and Romania may be contrasted with the more expansive approach adopted in a number of the other countries in the study. In Austria, interpretation and translation rights apply from the time of ‘initial suspicion’, rather from the time that a person is officially made aware of suspicion, and in Spain, the rights apply to persons who are being investigated or who are accused in respect of all procedural actions taken in relation to which their presence is necessary. To an extent, the Spanish provisions go beyond what is required by the Directive, but they provide a good example of a desire to respect not just the letter, but the spirit, of the Directive – and the other ‘roadmap’ provisions – which, as expressed in Recital 14 of the Directive, is to ensure the right to fair trial. Lithuania and Hungary provide further examples of a considered, and detailed approach to transposing the provisions of the Directive into domestic law. One common problem, noted here and expanded upon below, concerns the question of determining the need for interpretation and translation. Implementation of this aspect of the Directive requires consideration, and regulation, of the process by which need is to determined, and of the relevant criteria to be applied in making such a determination. Most, if not all, of the countries in the study have failed to regulate the process by which need is to be determined. 2.2 Identifying the need for interpretation/translation The Directive provides that member states must ensure that a procedure or mechanism is in place to ascertain whether suspected or accused persons speak and understand the language of the proceedings and whether they need the assistance of an interpreter (Art. 2(4)). Since Article 2(1) requires that suspected or accused persons who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings are provided with interpretation without delay, it follows that the procedure or mechanism for identifying need should be operative from the very early stages of the criminal process. The Directive provides only limited guidance with regard to the procedure or mechanism that may be adopted. Recital 21 states that such a procedure or mechanism implies that the competent authorities verify in any appropriate manner whether the suspected or accused person speaks or understands the language of the proceedings and whether they need the assistance of an interpreter, ‘including by consulting the suspected or accused persons 21