Inside Police Custody 2 a lawyer being presented as a mere formality and emphasizing that a lawyer will have to be paid. The obligation provided in the Criminal Procedure Code for the investigators to explain the consequences of waiving the right to a lawyer to a suspect was also carried out inappropriately, by only reassuring the suspect that it will be possible to invite a lawyer later. Such a way of providing information, especially when asking repeatedly whether a suspect indeed needs a lawyer, and/or indicating that with the participation of a lawyer the proceedings will last longer, might amount to pressure on a suspect the right to waive a lawyer. After the entry into force of the provisions on the mandatory participation of a lawyer in interviews with arrested suspects, situations when a suspect is pressured into refusing to have a lawyer should cease. On the other hand, the new provisions will not remedy the problem of legal aid quality. Lawyers’ right to access case materials during the pre-trial investigation is very limited, except for the information on which the prosecutor’s request for pre-trial detention is based. This is because the prosecutor, under the Criminal Procedure Code, can refuse access to the case materials when such access, in the opinion of the prosecutor, could undermine the success of the investigation. As mentioned by lawyers interviewed during the research, prosecutors are widely using the discretion granted to them. Therefore, access to the full case file usually becomes possible only after the pre-trial investigation is completed. This might raise issues under the Directive on the right to information, where grounds for refusal to access case file are more limited. Although the Criminal Procedure Code contains an extensive list of grounds for mandatory participation of a lawyer and investigators often appoint legal aid lawyers on other grounds, the role of legal aid lawyers in criminal proceedings is often only formal. In part of the interrogations observed the role of legal aid lawyers was limited to physical presence in the interrogation room or was passive. Only in one observed case, the legal aid lawyer requested to be allowed to talk with the suspect in private before the interrogation. In addition, three instances were observed, where a lawyer participated in two interrogations at the same time, thus being present only in part of the interrogation. Interviewed lawyers and investigators were also critical about the quality of the legal aid services in criminal cases. Cases when the lawyer participates in the interrogation only formally or participates only in a part of the interrogation, violates the suspect’s right to an effective defence, as the suspect not only receives no legal advice, but his or her situation may also be aggravated. For example, the fact that a lawyer was present in the interrogation may make it more difficult for the suspect to subsequently prove violations of his procedural rights. Moreover, knowing about the formal attitude of legal aid lawyers to the representation of suspect’s interests, investigators may prioritise inviting a legal aid lawyer instead of a lawyer designated by the arrested suspect. Thus, the inadequate quality of services provided by legal aid lawyers may indicate a systemic problem, which undermines confidence in lawyers, legal aid and fairness of the criminal proceedings in general. The research also revealed problems in practical implementation of procedural rights, which resulted from a lack of clear procedures or from a negligent attitude towards the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. Observed interrogations of suspects under arrest showed that different investigators structured the interrogations differently: some of them provided information about rights at the beginning of the interrogation, while others served all the documents, including the letter of rights, at the end of the interrogation. Some investigators asked whether the suspect agrees to give evidence, while others did not mention the possibility to stay silent or not to answer certain questions. In addition, interviews with investigators revealed that sometimes a notification of suspicion is served only to suspects who are willing to receive it. 79