Inside Police Custody 2 In the absence of a clear procedure on how a suspect’s right to notify a close person about his or her arrest should be implemented, this right enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code is only partially guaranteed in practice. Interviews with the investigators revealed that the police always notify a family member or close relative indicated by the suspect. However, despite a clear statutory provision, there is no uniform practise as to whether suspects should be allowed to notify their family members or close relatives personally. This results in denying such a possibility for some suspects without any specific reasons. Lack of qualified interpreters and translators capable of providing high quality interpretation and translation services in the criminal proceedings, as well as lack of a register of qualified independent interpreters and translators lead to difficulties in ensuring services’ quality and sourcing interpretation and translation for languages that are rarely used in Lithuania. During the court hearings, suspects and accused are sometimes not allowed to sit next to their lawyers, thus limiting the lawyers’ ability to advise, explain the procedure, etc. On the other hand, during the observations, examples of good practices, applied by investigators, have been observed as well. One such example could be offering the suspect the opportunity to ask questions, after the suspect has been served with the letter of rights and given time to read through it, thus increasing the likelihood that the letter’s content will be understood. Another example is inquiring whether medical assistance is required when the suspect has medical problems. Informing the suspects about their right to refrain from giving evidence before beginning the interrogation, as was done by part of the investigators, should also be considered good practice. Most investigators in the observed interrogations allowed suspects to read through the notification of suspicions against them without rushing, and some offered to answer their questions if something was unclear. Several interrogators also offered suspects the chance to consult with their lawyers in private before the interrogation. These examples, showing the professional attitude of investigators towards procedural rights of suspects, should be encouraged and become part of normal professional practice. Recommendations 1. Adopt letters of rights compliant with the requirements of EU directives: a. Draft a new letter of rights for suspects, providing essential information on procedural rights in simple language, and emphasising that suspects have a right to ask for additional information and explanations from officers. We suggest taking into consideration the alternative text for letter of rights which was drafted by the Human Rights Monitoring Institute which was drafted in compliance with the requirements of the Directive on the right to information b. Draft a version of the letter of rights for minors, which includes the rights from the Directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects. c. Amend the letter of rights in European arrest warrant proceedings, and include the right to not consent to being surrendered to the requesting State. 2. Include provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code which would effectively ensure the right to defence and preclude uncertainties in practice: a. Establish a requirement to make audio and video recordings of interrogations. The recordings would be a valuable source of information in deciding arguments whether the suspect’s procedural 80