Guidebook MONITORING PLACES OF DETENTION detainee who could not consult and his lawyer properly because due to a Plexiglas between them they could not hear each other, or because they could not exchange documents because the openings serving this purpose were welded. 4.4. Interviewing detainees Interviews with detainees are key sources of information with regard to the rights of suspects and accused. Over the course of the project, monitoring bodies raised some concerns in this regard. It was highlighted that procedural safeguards in early hours of detention are more difficult to monitor in practice, compared to prisons conditions. In police stations, the population is continually changing and, therefore, monitoring can be challenging.363 For these reasons, some monitoring bodies said they would interview the suspects, only if they are present at the police station during their visits.364 However, monitoring bodies can overcome this situation by conducting retrospective interviews with persons in pre-trial detention (remand custody) or in prisons about their experience in police custody. A CPT representative confirmed that it is true that it may be difficult to monitor police custody because often detainees are held in police stations only for a very restricted period of time, but also added that CPT overcomes this issue in two main ways: by interviewing people in remand custody about their experience in police custody; and by using good interviewing techniques, e.g. avoiding leading questions, but starting with open “chronological questions” (e.g. “can you tell us what happened when you have been arrested”), and only at the end, if information are missing, asking further specific questions.365 90 agreement was reached to conduct interviews with pre-trial detainees in JA Josephstadt in the area where detainees would normally receive their visits. The interviews dealt with the arrest and earlier phases of their detention. They were cross-checked with protocols and ‘Haftberichte’ in their JA files. However, this activity was not further pursued after the NPM was established. The key advantage of retrospective interviews with detainees in pre-trial detention or prison is that the risk of reprisals is lower. ‘It is not just “knowing about the right” it is also about “having the confidence to speak about it”. When people are in prison, they are more ready to speak about the time of their arrest, because they do not fear reprisals from police officers. But if asked about it at police stations they might not speak about it.’ Richard Carver, 1 September 2019 Other monitoring bodies, given the limited number of detainees in police stations during the day, have taken the approach of conducting night visits to police stations (e.g. Croatia). 4.5. Triangulation: combining different sources and methods When monitoring procedural rights monitoring bodies should have a strong focus on cross-checking information and on substantive questions and depart from only formalistic approaches.367 Austria To make sure that findings are reliable, monitors should cross-check different sources of information according to the principle of triangulation, including for example direct observations made by the team during the visit, information received through interviews with the authorities, staff and professionals taking care of the persons deprived of their liberty.368 Retrospective interviews with pre-trial detainees were conducted by the former Austrian Human Rights Advisory Council of the AOB (Menschenrechtsbeirat). In the interviews, the HRAC addressed specifically the arrest and all earlier phases of the detention.366 At the time, a special While interviews with detainees and staff in charge of their care remain an important source of information, a thorough assessment of the practice of police and pre-trial detention requires information to be gathered from a broad range of stakeholders and methods. 91