Inside Police Custody 2 given a discretion to secure interpretation even though the need for it has been established. It is difficult to reconcile this with the explicit terms of Article 2(1) of the Directive. Although, in the majority of countries in the study, the police have responsibility for ascertaining need at the investigative stage of criminal proceedings, in none of them was the procedure by which need is to be determined regulated (contrary to Art. 2(4) of the Directive), nor the relevant criteria explicitly articulated. Thus, the police are left to determine both the need for interpretation, and the language by which communication may be conducted, in an ad hoc manner. In Austria, for example, police officers reported that their practice is to ask suspects to read out passages of text, and to err on the side of caution; and in Poland, some officers told researchers that they ask the suspect to write out a passage in Polish. In Spain, police officers were observed to assess language ability by reference to the suspect’s responses to their questions and by asking them whether they understand what is being said. The lack of a recognised and uniform procedure for determining need almost certainly contributed to the finding in many of the countries in the study that police officers often resort to ploys to avoid the need to arrange for interpretation. For example, in Slovenia, where a suspect speaks Serbian, Croatian or English, the police tend to interpret themselves even if they may not be sufficiently proficient in that language. In Hungary, lawyers reported that where suspects speak a less commonly encountered language, the police try to persuade them to accept interpretation in English. And in Lithuania, it was found that whilst suspects who have no, or a poor, understanding of Lithuanian are provided with an interpreter, this was not the case for suspects who have average proficiency in the language. This was also found to be the case in Italy. However, the lack of an adequately regulated procedure for determining need is not the only apparent cause. In Romania, for example, the police complained that it was difficult to find interpreters willing and able to attend the police station in order to interpret – citing low fees and delays in payment. More generally, lawyers in some countries explained the reluctance of the police to engage interpreters by reference to the consequent delays that this would cause to the investigation. 2.3 Interpretation at the initial stages of detention Article 2(1) of the Directive requires that interpretation be provided to suspected and accused persons ‘without delay’. This requirement should be read in conjunction with the obligations under the Directive on the right to information to promptly inform suspected or accused persons of specified procedural rights (Arts. 3 and 4), the criminal act they are suspected or accused of (Art. 6(1)) and, if arrested or detained, the reasons for their arrest or detention (Art. 6(2)). Recital 25 of that Directive states that, where necessary, suspected or accused persons should be provided with translation or interpretation of the information that must be provided into a language that the person understands. In practice, these obligations will be difficult to achieve without an effective mechanism for identifying the need for interpretation and the relevant language, and structures, resources and procedures designed to ensure that appropriate, competent interpretation is available at short notice, and at whatever time of day or night the interpretation is required. To an extent, the difficulties may be ameliorated (although not removed altogether), by the use of remote interpretation (by telephone or video-link), and by the availability of standard texts (in particular, the letter of rights) in a range of languages. 23