Inside Police Custody 2 rights have been breached during interrogation, e.g. whether the defence lawyer and interpreter participated, whether pressure was exerted to waive the right to a lawyer, to give evidence etc. b. Establish the right of lawyers to sit next to suspected and accused persons during court hearings. c. Establish a requirement that prosecutors’ decisions not to allow suspects or their lawyers to access the case file during pre-trial investigation must be based on specific grounds (and not only abstract quotes from the Criminal Procedure Code), which demonstrate the necessity for such restrictions. 3. To adopt sub-statutory acts and harmonize investigators’ working practices: a. Establish a unified interrogation protocol, and specific time and ways to provide suspects with information on their procedural rights, as well as what documents and when must be served. b. Establish that officers filling out the Record of arrest should ask the arrestee whether he or she wants a specific lawyer. The details on the requested lawyer should be included in the record, so that the investigator receiving it could contact the lawyer when planning the interrogation. The official form of the Record of arrest should be amended accordingly. c. Clear rules for informing a third party about a person’s arrest or for allowing the arrestee to contact a third party should be established, allowing the arrestee to request this not only when the Record of arrest is being filled in, but also later. 4. Adopt measures to improve the quality of interpretation and translation, and legal aid services: a. Establish a register of independent and qualified interpreters and translators; b. Research reasons for poor quality of legal aid services, and use the collected data to come up with solutions aimed at making the legal aid system more appealing for lawyers of service quality.   A.6 Poland – Conclusions and Recommendations Major issues Numerous amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) aimed at implementing the EU legislation concerning suspects’ rights resulted in adequate protection of the right to translation and the right to information in criminal procedure. However CCP still does not guarantee effective access to a lawyer for detainees and suspects. Police officers are rather willing to use the help of an interpreter, because it allows them to conduct the proceedings with a detainee (suspect) more efficiently and it protects them against allegations of unfairness of the proceedings that might be raised at a later stage of the proceedings. The procedure for assessing the need for the assistance of an interpreter varies and depends on individual officers. Therefore, it is worth considering unifying the practice in this area. The decision not to appoint an interpreter does not take the form of a procedural decision subject to judicial control. There is no complaint mechanism for the quality of translation. Furthermore the binding law does not guarantee the absolute confidentiality of legal advice given to a suspect by his lawyer with the help of an interpreter. The instruction on the rights of detainees and suspects is a basic source of information on their rights, however, due to the rather hermetic language, these instructions in many cases did not fulfill their 81