Inside Police Custody 2 methods included, for example, interviews of arrested detainees in prison awaiting a validation hearing, interviews of former detainees, an enhanced number of interviews of lawyers and of police officers, and interviews of interpreters. Further information about the research methodology adopted in particular countries is provided in the country reports. The EU Directives require member states to transmit the text of measures adopted to give effect to the Directives to the European Commission, and require the Commission to submit reports to the European Parliament and to the Council assessing the extent to which member states have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with the Directives. This project, in common with similar research previously conducted, demonstrates that even if legislative and other measures are adopted to give effect to the Directives, it does not follow that the requirement of the Directives are given effect in practice. Even if the provisions of the Directives are faithfully reflected in national legislation and regulations, the nature of the provisions in the Directives is such that effective implementation is reliant on a range of other factors, including financial and other resources, detailed regulation of processes and procedures, and the professional cultures of criminal justice officials and lawyers. The best way of obtaining reliable and comparable data on practical implementation of the Directives, and on the ways in which they are experienced by criminal justice actors, lawyers, and suspects and defendants, is by fieldwork-based research involving observation (including in police stations). A failure by the relevant government ministries, officials and institutions in member states to facilitate, and to co-operate with, such research will mean that the European Commission, and ultimately the EU itself, will not have an adequate basis for assessing either compliance with, or the effectiveness of, its policies and legislation in this field. Moreover, it will mean that member states will forgo the opportunity to effectively regulate and improve their criminal justice systems and processes, having particular regard to procedural rights and, ultimately fair trial. This is true for both the EU Directives which are the focus of this research, and for the other Directives adopted under the EU procedural rights roadmap. 1.2 The European Union context In 2009 the EU adopted a ‘roadmap’ of procedural rights in criminal proceedings, with the aim of introducing EU legislation on a range of procedural rights for suspected and accused persons, to come into force over a number of years.4 The EU had, over a decade or more, introduced extensive legislation on police, prosecution and judicial co-operation and mutual recognition (most notably, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW)), and it was recognised that this should be matched by measures that would protect the rights of individuals in criminal proceedings and those who are the subject of an EAW. The legislative mechanism to be adopted was the EU Directive, which would require EU member states to introduce legislation, regulations and other measures that ensure that the provisions of the Directive are complied with in domestic law. The Lisbon Treaty enhanced the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and it has competence to deal with questions of interpretation of the Treaty and of Directives. In doing so, it must also take account of the principles, rights and freedoms embodied in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. National courts may, in criminal proceedings, ask the CJEU to give a preliminary ruling on a question of interpretation of a Directive during the currency of a case, and there is an expedited procedure in cases where the accused is in detention. Further, the European Commission has the power to refer a case to the CJEU on the grounds that a member state has failed to fulfil its Roadmap with a view to fostering protection of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings, 1 July 2009, 11457/09 DROIPEN 53 COPEN 120. 4 11