1. Introduction Background Since 2009 the European Union (EU) has adopted a series of secondary law instruments covering numerous procedural rights (the ‘Directives’).1 The Directives, setting up common minimum standards, were adopted to address the fundamental rights concerns arising from the increasing use of mutual recognition and cross-border cooperation instruments. Procedural rights are recognised not only as safeguards for a fair trial but also as the most effective means against torture or other forms of illtreatment, especially in the first hours of arrest.2 Although the status of transposition of the Directives varies throughout the EU Member States, most have been transposed into national law. However, findings coming from research, consultations with criminal justice practitioners as well as the European Commission’s implementation reports have demonstrated that even if legislative and other measures are adopted to give effect to the Directives, this does not automatically mean that they are adequately implemented in practice.3 Multiple research studies and projects were conducted to assess the level of implementation of the Directives.4 The analyses conducted across Europe have documented key challenges and put forward recommendations. For example, one of the major projects ‘Inside Police Custody 2’ examined the situation in 9 EU Member States. It resulted in detailed national and comparative reports with targeted recommendations revealing major challenges in the practical implementation of the Directives in police custody, including in the field of legal aid, access to a lawyer, right to information, and audio visual recording.5 1. Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings (2016) OJL 297, 04.11.2016, 1 (Directive on legal aid); Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (2016) OJL 65, 11.03.2016, 1 (Directive on the presumption of innocence); Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings (2016) OJ L 132, 21.05.2016, 1 (Directive on procedural safeguards for children); Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (2010) OJL 280, 26.10.2010, 1 (Directive on the right to interpretation and translation); Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (2012) OJL 142, 01.06.2012, 1 (Directive on the right to information); Directive 2013/48/ EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (2013) OJL 294, 06.11.2013, 1 (Directive on access to a lawyer). 2. Richard Carver and Lisa Handley (eds), Does Torture Prevention Work? (Liverpool University Press 2016); Julia Kozma and Asbjørn Rachlew, Combatting Torture During Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention (DIGNITY – Danish Institute against Torture 2018); CPT, ‘Access to a Lawyer as a Means of Preventing Ill-Treatment: Extract from the 21st General Report of the CPT’ (2011) CPT/Inf(2011)28-part1, 1; CPT, ‘28th General Report of the CPT: 1 January - 31 December 2018’ (April 2019) CPT(Inf(2019), 30. 3. For relevant research see Ed Lloyd-Cape, ‘Inside Police Custody 2: Comparative Report’ (2018); for the implementation reports see European Commission, ‘Rights of Suspects and Accused: Documents’, <https://commission.europa.eu/strategyand-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/criminal-justice/rights-suspects-and-accused_en> accessed 02 March 2023. 4. Lloyd-Cape, ‘Inside Police Custody 2’ (2018) 11; see also FRA, ‘Rights in Practice: Access to a Lawyer and Procedural Rights in Criminal and EAW Proceedings’ (2019); FRA, ‘Child-Friendly Justice – Perspectives and Experiences of Children Involved in Judicial Proceedings as Victims, Witnesses or Parties in Nine EU Member States’ (2017). 5. Lloyd-Cape, ‘Inside Police Custody 2’ (2018); see also country reports of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, Austria <https://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/special/2018-Inside-Police-Custody-2-Bulgaria-EN.pdf>; the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Bulgaria; the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Hungary <https://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/IPC_ Country_Report_Hungary_Eng_fin.pdf>; Associazione Antigone, Italy <https://www.antigone.it/upload2/uploads/docs/ IPC_ITA.pdf>; the Human Rights Monitoring Institute, Lithuania <http://hrmi.lt/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/National_ report_Lithuania_2018.pdf>; the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Poland < https://hfhr.pl/en/publications-7798/ inside-police-custody-prawa-procesowe-na-posterunkach-policji>; the Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania – the Helsinki Committee, Romania <http://www.apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/IPC-eng.pdf>; the Peace Institute, Slovenia <https://www.mirovni-institut.si/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Inside-Police-Custody-2-Slovenian-report.pdf>; and Rights International, Spain <https://rightsinternationalspain.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Bajo-Custodia-policial-2.pdf>. 6