During the regional consultations, it was confirmed that many reforms on strengthening the access to a lawyer in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Romania would not have happened without the involvement of lawyers and the Bar Associations. EXAMPLE In the Netherlands, discussions about reforming the legal aid system started in 2014, when the government proposed a far reaching cuts to the legal aid system. Initiatives aiming at reforming and achieving a less expensive legal aid system continued over the years under different governments. With the motto “not all problems are so complex that they always require a lawyer” government representatives tried to justify cuts on compensation for legal aid lawyers The government plans were opposed by many lawyers who started demonstrations in several cities as well as a Twitter campaign #ikpiketnietlanger, which roughly translates to legal aid lawyers striking. The Netherlands Bar (Nederlandse orde van advocaten, NOvA) supported the legal aid lawyers urging the government to refrain from the cuts and requesting the allocation of an adequate budget to the legal aid system. As a result of this opposition the government decided to take a step back and allocated a budget of 154 million for 2022 to be reduced to 64 million in 2026.57 In Romania, the system was changed as a consequence of the pressure coming from legal aid lawyers of the Bucharest Bar to make the random appointment system fairer in terms of distribution of cases and that leadership of the Bucharest bar accepted the criticism and decided to change the system. Our project also showed very well the value of the involvement of non-legal experts in the regional consultations, such as amongst others: Prof Gautam Gulati, University of Limerick, Ireland, a medical doctor and forensic psychiatrist; Gavin Oxburgh, former investigator and Professor of Police Science at Northumbria University, UK; Dr. Ivar Fahsing, Detective Chief Superintendent and Associate Professor at the Norwegian Police University College, who shared the perspective of law enforcement; and language experts from the specialised organisation Capito, who could contribute with their expert knowledge on plain language. The importance of involving National Human Rights Institutions and National Preventive Mechanisms established under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture – OPCAT in strategically strengthening procedural rights was also stressed. As they are the central national institution on human rights with a strong mandate and outreach ability, they could play a very important role in the change processes and should remain key allies and precious sources of information in the monitoring and strengthening of procedural rights (see also above, § 2.2). 2.4.2 Engaging state authorities The involvement of state authorities who ultimately have to implement reforms is absolutely crucial. For example, in the implementation of mandatory AVR in Ireland, strong criticisms from the judiciary in judgments in cases where AVR was not used was crucial. The Committees set up to pilot AVR were multi-disciplinary including police, government officials and lawyers. Similarly, in Belgium, the participation of representatives from the Ministry of Justice’s criminal policy department in the process of drafting the revised letter of rights allowed the working group to receive direct support from the minister in the piloting phase. Actively engaging key stakeholders from the state can however be challenging as was also witnessed in this project. It was for example much more difficult than initially estimated to ensure the participation of state authorities in the regional consultations. It is important for future projects to thoroughly analyse this challenge and how it can be overcome. 57. Kees Pijnappels ‘De stelselherziening gefinancierde rechtsbijstand is een luchtkasteel gebleken, gebouwd op wensdenken, hypotheses en illusies. Een politieke klucht in zeven bedrijven‘ (Advocatenblad February 2023). 25