The report is divided into two main chapters: factors and tools of change. The first chapter illustrates the general factors for effective change processes and how these may translate to the area of procedural rights; the second chapter focuses on the tools to influence change, their dis/advantages, strategic use, challenges, and relationship with each other. 2. Factors of change This chapter explores principles and questions - based on a systemic approach - attempting to provide a useful perspective on how to influence change and how this can be used to strengthen procedural rights. It draws conclusions from the desk research conducted in the framework of the project, the internal exchange among the partner organisations and the consultations with experts from various backgrounds during four national roundtables, four regional consultations as well as one EU workshop with CSOs in Brussels. 2.1 Taking a strategic approach on HOW change happens The project aimed at generating tangible change in the area of procedural rights based on promising practice examples in selected EU Member States, namely Austria, Ireland, Romania, and Spain. From previous experience it was seen as necessary to provide detailed information on WHAT these practices really look like, the technical details and effects on different target groups, but also HOW they were successfully implemented. The key challenge in the promotion and protection of human rights in the criminal justice system is the so-called ‘implementation gap’. In 1992, the first UN Special Rapporteur on Torture stated: “The world can no longer avoid the conclusion that while successes have been registered at the international level, only failures can be recorded at the national level. The most vital question before us, therefore, is: how do we bridge this seemingly unbridgeable gap between international success and national failures.”11 Unfortunately, his words continue to be true today. The development of strong human rights treaties, soft law standards, the immeasurable amount of recommendations from international courts or treaty bodies, but also newly developed EU legislation have not led to the desired changes in practice. Since 2009 the EU has adopted several Directives with the aim of strengthening procedural rights but in practice the situation is still inadequate, and suspected and accused persons remain insufficiently protected. The PRORPC project recognises that procedural rights are a key factor12 - among many others - in protecting the rights of suspected and accused persons and attempts to strengthen their implementation in practice. Significant resources have been invested in projects finding out what the practical problems are and developing clear policies and recommendations. However, in practice these recommendations have not been adequately followed-up. For example, the practice from Ireland shows that mandatory audio and video-recording (AVR) of police interviews can become a reality and that this can be highly beneficial for all stakeholders. Yet, most countries in the EU fail to follow this example. 11. ECOSOC ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur. Mr. P. Kooijmans, pursuant to Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1991/38’ 1991 E/CN.4/1992/17 § 288. 12. The effectiveness of procedural rights, e.g. in preventing torture, has been scientifically proven in the research study led by Carver and Handley (eds), Does Torture Prevention Work? (Liverpool University Press 2016). 10