Guidebook d) the right to interpretation and translation; e) the right to remain silent.177 Compared to the EU Directive, Article 6 ECHR does not explicitly regulate the right to information. However, the ECtHR states in its jurisdiction that the accused persons have to be informed about their right to (free) legal assistance and the right to remain silent. However, this case law does not prevent the inclusion of further rights.178 The main innovation of the Directive is to establish a positive obligation on the Member States to provide arrested persons with a ‘letter of rights’ explaining their rights. The Directive provides that in addition the suspects or accused persons have to be informed about: a) the right of access to the materials of the case; b) the right to have consular authorities and one person informed; c) the right of access to urgent medical assistance; and d) the maximum number of hours or days suspects or accused persons may be deprived of liberty before being brought before a judicial authority. The Letter of Rights should include basic information about any possibility of challenging the lawfulness of the arrest, obtaining a review of the detention; or making a request for provisional release.179 Suspects or accused persons who are arrested or detained should have the opportunity to read the Letter of Rights and to keep it in their possession throughout the time they are deprived of liberty. Persons who do not speak or understand the language of the criminal proceeding are also entitled to receive the Letter of Rights in language they understand.180 The information on the reasons for arrest/detention, and about the accusation should be given in such detail as is necessary to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, persons must be informed about the criminal act they are suspected or accused of having committed; and if arrested or detained about the reasons therefore. Detailed information cover the nature and legal classification of the offence, as well as the nature of participation of the accused.181 According to ECtHR case law, it is not enough to the legal basis for the arrest or detention; rather a solid legal and factual basis of the arrest that enables to challenge the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty is required.182 44 STANDARDS The right of access to the materials of the case should include material such as documents and where appropriate photographs and audio and video recordings.183 Access to the files must be granted free of charge.184 The Directive provides for two divergent rights. If a person is deprived of liberty, access should be ensured to the documents that are essential to effectively challenge the lawfulness of the arrest or detention to the arrested persons or their lawyers.185 Moreover, the authorities must also ensure that access to all material evidence is granted in due time to allow to prepare the defence. If the competent authorities have new material evidence, access should be granted as well in due time.186 Access to material evidence not linked to the deprivation of liberty can be derogated if there is a serious threat to the life or fundamental rights of another person or a restriction is necessary to safeguard public interest, such as the ongoing investigation.187 How is this right exercised? The information about the rights have to be given in a simple and accessible language taking any particular needs into account. This requirement is also well established case law of the ECtHR.188 Also the Letter of Rights should be in a simple and accessible format.189 It should be recorded when information is provided to suspects and accused persons.190 Main findings on the practice The right to information has been largely implemented, but there are still some challenges with the exercise of these rights, e.g. there are delays in providing information and/or not all the information is provided; the Letter of Rights is overly complex and legalistic, thus not ensuring that the information is simple and accessible. Further, oral information about procedural rights is often provided in a formalistic way, and in some countries the evidence suggests that the police discourage suspects from exercising their procedural rights.191 45