Inside Police Custody 2 report, in the absence of electronic recording, it is difficult if not impossible to ensure, ex post facto, that any interpretation that was provided was competent and accurate. The research findings also raise the issues of independence and confidentiality as matters of concern. As already noted, in Lithuania, use is made of in-house interpreters, and police officers may act as interpreters in Austria. Furthermore, in many of the countries in the study there are no legal provisions directed at guaranteeing confidentiality. The widespread use of unregistered or uncertified interpreters is also of concern because such persons are not governed by professional codes of conduct. Researchers witnessed interpreters acting inappropriately, for example, by browbeating the suspect (‘Go back to your country if you don’t want to abide by Spanish laws’), or by taking over the questioning from the police interviewer (Lithuania). In most of the countries in the study, a further issue related both to the availability of interpreters and translators, and quality, is the low level of remuneration. In Italy, for example, interpreters are paid approximately five Euros per hour, and they may not be paid for more than two years. With regard to challenging decisions not to provide interpretation or translation, or the quality of the interpretation or translation provided, whilst most of the countries do have such mechanisms, they are not normally specific procedures, but rather general remedial procedures incorporated into the trial process. This can mean that their effectiveness in practice is limited, especially in respect of challenging the quality of interpretation or translation. In a recent case in Spain, the Supreme Court accepted that imprecision or errors in translation are ‘unfortunately frequent and practically inevitable’. However, it went on to hold that in order for the court to take such deficiencies into account, the accused must be able to show that it led to adverse consequences; for example, the deficiency in translation undermined the defence, or prevented the accused from properly explaining his or her version of events. Whilst this may be possible in the case of a written translation, it would be very difficult to demonstrate that poor quality interpretation had such an impact, especially in the absence of an electronic recording. 2.8 Conclusions The governments of all of the countries in the study have reported to the European Commission that they have introduced measures in order to transpose the requirements of the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation. Whilst some governments have clearly sought to regulate the various aspects of the right to interpretation and translation in some detail, further legal, procedural and regulatory changes are required in most countries in the study in order to faithfully and fully comply with the requirements of the Directive. Most obviously, Bulgaria and Romania should amend their approach to this Directive, and the other Directives, so that they are treated as applying to all persons who are suspected or detained in respect of a criminal offence, who are, de facto, arrested or detained, irrespective of the domestic classification of such arrest or detention. This would then entail the introduction of laws and procedures designed to ensure that the requirements of the Directive apply in such circumstances. Identifying the need for interpretation or translation is particularly problematic at the early stages of the criminal process, for the reasons articulated in section 2.2 above. Therefore, unless sole responsibility 28