Guidebook EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Procedural rights of suspects and accused in criminal procedures play a crucial role in safeguarding numerous human rights, including the right to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, and the right to liberty and security. These safeguards are however not emphasized strongly enough in international instruments. At the same time, recognising the crucial importance of procedural rights, the European Union (EU) has adopted a series of secondary law instruments, including the right to information, the right to interpretation and translation, the right of access to a lawyer and legal aid, the right to inform third parties, the right to presumption of innocence as well as the rights of persons in especially vulnerable situations, such as children and persons with psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities. Despite the growing literature on the importance of procedural safeguards, there is little information on the role and practice of EU National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) in this regard. For this reason, the present project explored how NHRIs can strengthen procedural safeguards and prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment. Although almost all NHRIs have worked on procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings in a way or another, our research showed that criminal procedural rights do not seem to be among the strategic priorities of NHRIs, and sometimes they are even perceived to fall outside their mandate. Moreover, some NHRIs are reluctant to work on procedural rights as they see it as an interference with the judiciary. Our research also showed that NHRIs can be important agents of change to strengthen procedural safeguards. NHRIs, especially those with a mandate under the OPCAT and CRPD, dispose of a great number of tools that can be used to effectively strengthen procedural rights. One of the major strengths of NHRIs is that they have a broad and multi-functional mandate and can conduct a variety of activities to promote and protect the rights of suspects and accused, spanning from awareness raising, research, training and education to advising the State on the adoption of a new legal instrument and monitoring the practical application of such laws in the 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY domestic context; from monitoring places of detention to complaint handlings and participation in courts proceedings. Often the biggest challenge in the promotion and protection of procedural rights is that suspects and accused are seen only as subjects of ‘ordinary criminal law’ but not as human rights holders. In these cases, NHRIs can have a strong role in promoting the universal applicability of human rights standards to all persons and take part in the public debate and contribute to a necessary cultural change, through awareness raising, education activities and should make use of press organs and a broad range of media. Another major challenges is that, even though procedural rights are comprehensively regulated, problems often arise in their practical application. With their powers and access, NHRIs, especially those with the mandate to monitor places of detention, can play a particularly important role in verifying that procedural rights are effectively implemented in practice and that information on rights is given and understood. If the mandate to monitor places of detention lies with another domestic human rights body (e.g. NPMs), NHRIs should ensure close cooperation and coordination, by e.g. exchanging information, conducting joint activities, and following up on respective recommendations. Moreover, NHRIs with complaints handling mandate should have the power to receive complaints on criminal procedural rights concerning at a minimum the investigation phase, e.g. police proceedings, and can be key in promoting the adherence and compliance of the judiciary to international human rights norms and should support the judiciary to protect and promote human rights. To this aim, NHRIs could for example: refer cases to the attention of the judicial authority or participate as third parties in legal proceedings at the national, regional and international level. Finally, in some countries NHRIs reported not to consider EU instruments on procedural rights of suspects and accused necessary or useful, but to prefer national law or other international standards. Yet EU law has become an important source of human rights standards and there is in certain cases an added value in the application of EU standards that can strengthen the procedural rights of suspects and accused in criminal proceedings. Hence, EU NHRIs should more strategically look into the opportunities 9