Inside Police Custody 2 competent interpreters, and in any event the police often have the power to circumvent the obligation to use a registered or competent interpreter. Low levels of remuneration for interpreters is a common problem which, in turn, affects both levels of competence and the willingness of interpreters to attend police stations, especially at short notice or out-of-office hours. Whilst remote interpretation is, in principle, available in a minority of countries, it is rarely if ever used. The law in most of the countries in the study regulates, with some degree of precision, the time at which information about procedural rights must be provided to suspected and accused persons, and in most cases, this is sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Directive. The laws of all countries provide for a letter of rights, although in many countries in the study the letter of rights does not cover all of the rights required by Article 4 of the Directive on the right to information. Most countries have a standard letter of rights, but regrettably most were found to be lengthy and complex, so that many suspected and accused persons, particularly those with vulnerabilities or those who have language difficulties, are unable to fully understand them. Thus, most countries do not comply with the requirement in Article 4(4) of the Directive on the right to information that they be drafted in simple and accessible language. These problems, together with the failure in some countries to require that suspects and accused persons be given an opportunity to read the letter of rights, and the failure to require that suspected and accused persons be allowed to keep them in their possession (Art. 4(1)), can be relatively easily remedied. Greater consideration is needed to deal with the problems, in practice, of ensuring that the police comply with the requirements concerning the letter of rights, and also those associated with the various obligations to provide sufficient and meaningful information concerning arrest, detention and the suspected offence, and to provide access to relevant documents and materials. Perhaps the greatest difficulties disclosed by the research concern the right of access to a lawyer. Generally, the laws of all of the countries in the study provide for such a right (subject to the limitations already explained in respect of Bulgaria and Romania), but (with the exception of a minority of counties, notably Spain), most detained suspects in most countries do not, in practice, have access to a lawyer at the early stages of the criminal process. Where suspects do have access to a lawyer, the research discloses significant concern in most countries about their quality and competence, particularly in respect of legal aid or ex officio lawyers. A range of factors appears to be at work to limit effective access to competent legal advice and assistance. In some countries, the police discourage or prevent suspects from exercising their right to a lawyer, or encourage them to use a lawyer preferred by the police, sometimes facilitated by the lack of a recording requirement so that the process is not transparent. Many duty lawyer or ex officio schemes do not guarantee that a competent lawyer is available and willing to attend the police station at short notice, and even where a lawyer does attend, the facilities for private consultation are often inadequate or non-existent. Such problems are often exacerbated by a failure to disclose relevant information about the suspected offence, limitations on what the lawyer may do during interrogations, and low levels of remuneration. The governments of Bulgaria and Romania should (preferably in discussion with the European Commission) give fresh consideration to their approach to the applicability of the Directives, which is important not only in respect of the three Directives considered in this study, but also the Directives that have to be transposed during 2019. However, the research demonstrates that the governments of the other countries in the study have, to varying extents, sought to faithfully transpose the Directives into domestic law. Researchers were able to identify both good examples of legal provisions regarding procedural rights, and effective approaches and schemes for delivering them. Nevertheless, serious attention does have to be paid, in all of the countries in the study, to how the rights encompassed by 59