Inside Police Custody 2 information function fully. Placing posters with information about detainees’/suspects’ rights at the Police station could be considered. Information about the reason for arrest is included in the arrest report and is subject to judicial review in the course of examining the legitimacy of arrest. However, the justification of charges is usually very vague and does not contain information about factual basis or about gathered evidence. Before the submission of the indictment to the court, charges are not subject to judicial review. The scope of the reasons for justifying the refusal of access to the case files corresponds to the acceptable grounds for refusing such access under the Directive 2012/13/EU. There is also a complaint mechanism against the refusal of access to the case file. However, this standard is not met in the case of excluding certain materials of proceedings under Article 250.2b CCP. Such materials may form the basis of a request for detention even though the suspect has no access to them. The basis for the application of pre-trial detention is based on materials disclosed by the prosecutor, not the entire collection of materials. What is more, the actual access to the file before the court’s hearing depends largely on the court’s organization. A small number of attorneys/legal counsels taking part in the first procedural step at the Police stations after the arrest confirm the thesis that existing solutions ensuring access to a lawyer are insufficient. As a result, in practice, the organization of legal assistance takes place outside the Police station. The confidentiality of the contact with a lawyer may be limited by the decision of the Police officer, which does not require written justification nor is subject to any control. Rooms at Police units often do not provide adequate conditions for confidential conversation with a lawyer while at the same time protecting against the detainee’s escape. Article 245.2 CCP. according to which provisions on lists of defenders in the accelerated procedure should be applied accordingly, is not used in practice. At the Police stations there is no information available about the defenders, in particular the lists of defenders in the accelerated proceedings. Low awareness of Directive 2013/48/EU among professional representatives may result in rare application of the Directive in judicial decisions. Recommendations Right to interpretation 1. Taking into account Article 5.3 of Directive 2010/64/EU, an absolute confidentiality regarding the translation of contact with the defender shall be secured. 2. Securing proper technical conditions at police headquarters will allow for wider use of videoconferencing for translation purposes. This would allow for faster access to interpretation. The list of sworn translators kept by the Minister of Justice should always contain contact details such as telephone number and e-mail address. 3. The decision to refuse appointment of an interpreter should be subject to judicial control. 4. The remuneration rates for translators have not changed since 2005 and may turn out to be noncompetitive compared to commercial rates, therefore it is necessary to consider raising these rates. 82