Guidebook What does the right cover? The Directive states that suspects or accused persons have the right to nominate at least one person who should be informed without delay about their deprivation of liberty. In addition, the arrested or detained person should have the right to communicate with a third party such as relatives without undue delay.120 Derogations are possible if there are compelling reasons such as urgent need to avert serious adverse consequences for the life, liberty or physical integrity of a person; or if the criminal proceedings are risked to be substantially jeopardised. According to the Directive, derogations may be authorised only on a case-by-case basis, either by a judicial authority, or by another competent authority on condition that the decision can be submitted to judicial review.122 Similarly, also the right to communicate with a third person, while deprived of liberty, is subject to deferment and limitations. Thus, imperative requirements or proportionate operational requirements may pose limits.123 Before derogating from the right to inform or communicate with a third party, the national authorities should first consider whether the person could communicate with another person nominated by him or her.124 How is this right exercised? The arrested or detained person has to be informed about the right to nominate a third person who should be informed about the deprivation of liberty. The Directive states that the suspected or accused person has the right to have a person informed. It is not guaranteed under the Directive that the person him- or herself can give this information. The safeguards under the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, are broader as it states that the person should be entitled to notify or require the competent authority to notify a third person.125 The right to inform a third party can be waived if the person has received clear and sufficient information about the content of the right and the consequences of the waiver; and if the waiver was given voluntarily and unequivocally.126 34 STANDARDS The right to communicate with a third party requires practical arrangements concerning the timing, means, duration and frequency of communication with third persons, taking account of the need to maintain good order, safety and security in the place where the person is being deprived of liberty.127 Main findings on the practice The main challenges identified concern the limits regarding who may be informed or is informed independently of a nomination by the person deprived of liberty. Further some Member States have more grounds for refusal than specified in the Directive, which are partly unprecise such as ‘justified reasons’ or ‘unreasonable difficulties’. Challenges also arise when it comes to the right to communication when it is not granted without undue delay, including during deprivation of liberty by the police. In numerous countries there are excessive limitations on the number or duration of contacts; in some cases even a complete ban without clear criteria.128 1.4.3. Right to interpretation and translation RELEVANT QUESTIONS: »» »» »» »» Are there adequate procedures or mechanisms in place to assess the need of interpretation or translation? Did the suspect or accused person had access to an interpreter throughout the proceedings? Was an interpreter available in due time? • If not, why not? Was no interpreter available? Insufficient information about the right to interpretation and translation? Was the quality of the interpretations adequately ensuring that the suspect or accused person could follow the proceeding? • If the quality was not adequate, did the suspect or accused person had the possibility to complaint? And was this complain adequately addressed (eg. change of interpreter)? Did the person receive the translation of the essential documents? • Which documents were translated? (at least: decisions depriving a person of his/her liberty, any charges or indictments, and any judgements) • If not, why not? Was the right waived – if so, was this documented? 35