Inside Police Custody 2 concerned’. The Directive contains no similar provisions regarding identification of whether a person understands the language of the proceedings for the purposes of translation. Ascertaining the need for interpretation and, to a lesser extent, translation is not necessarily a straightforward enterprise, especially when the conditions and circumstances attending upon the early stages of the criminal process are taken into account. Although the rights covered by the Directive do not only apply to persons arrested and detained by the police, this prototypical example serves as a useful lens through which to view the potential practical difficulties. A person arrested by the police will normally be taken to a police station within a short period of time. Once at the police station, the police will normally interrogate them (whether in the form of an official interview, or informal ‘conversation’), and they may carry out other investigative actions involving or requiring the presence of the suspect. Depending on the jurisdiction, decisions will be taken about whether to initiate proceedings, whether to refer the case to a prosecutor or a judicial officer, and whether to detain or seek authority to detain the suspect pending their appearance before a court. At various points in the process, the suspect must be informed of the reasons for the arrest and detention, provided with information about the criminal act of which they are suspected, informed of their procedural rights and asked if they wish to exercise them and, if interrogated, asked potentially complex questions about factual circumstances and their state of mind. They may also, of course, consult with a lawyer. Normally strict, and relatively short, time-limits will apply to this part of the process. In such circumstances, determining whether a suspect speaks or understands the relevant language, and whether they speak or understand the language at a level that enables them to understand potentially complex legal terminology and concepts, and to respond in a way that faithfully represents what they would wish to say if they could be understood in their own language, is a potentially difficult and complex task. The difficulty may be compounded by the need, if the suspect apparently does not speak or understand the relevant language to a sufficient level, to determine what language, or languages, they do speak or understand. The difficulties may be further exacerbated if the suspect cannot read or has limited reading ability. Furthermore, the suspect may, on the one hand, not be co-operative or, on the other, may be overly willing to give the impression that they speak or understand the relevant language at a higher level than is in fact the case. Once the need for interpretation has been established, the police then need to be able to contact an appropriate, competent, interpreter who is either able and willing to provide interpretation remotely or, more commonly, is able and willing to attend the police station promptly. In most of the countries in the study, responsibility for determining the need for interpretation is placed on the police, although sometimes this is a matter of practice rather than of law or regulation. In Slovenia, primary responsibility for determining need rests on the police, but internal police guidelines provide that the police must give the suspect an official list of interpreters enabling them to choose (although it must be questioned whether a suspect in such circumstances is in a position to make an informed choice). It might be argued that giving suspects the power to determine whether they need an interpreter recognises the right to an interpreter as a true right of the suspect. However, Article 2(1) of the Directive places responsibility on the state to ensure that suspected or accused persons are provided with an interpreter if they do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings and, for a variety of reasons, a suspect may decide that they do not need an interpreter when, in fact, they do not have a sufficient command of the relevant language. Whilst the Directive requires interpretation to be provided if it is determined that a suspect or accused does not speak or understand the language of the proceedings, in Bulgaria the police are, nevertheless, 22