Inside Police Custody 2 Austria, the letter of rights does not include all of the rights and information specified in Article 4 of the Directive (and this was also the case in Hungary in respect of the version of the letter of rights that was in use at the time that the research was conducted). Despite the fact that the letter of rights is drafted nationally in most countries, in almost all of them it was found to be lengthy and complex, often consisting of extracts from the criminal procedure code or similar legislation. This is despite the fact that the Directive clearly states that the letter of rights must be drafted in ‘simple and accessible language’ (Art. 4(4)). As a result, it was found in many of the countries that a significant proportion of suspects do not, or are unlikely to be able to, understand notification of their procedural rights. The difficulties in suspects understanding their procedural rights was exacerbated in many of the countries by a number of factors in addition to the way in which the letter of rights is drafted, and the lack of an obligation on the police to explain them. First, whilst the Directive explicitly requires that suspects be given the opportunity to read the letter of rights, this is not reflected in the law of most of the countries; and in practice, in most countries, suspects were not given an opportunity by the police to do so. Furthermore, in some countries, it was found that police officers actively discouraged suspects from reading the notification of rights, and from exercising them. Second, whilst the Directive requires that detained suspects be allowed to keep the letter of rights in their possession throughout their detention (Art. 4(1)), this is not explicitly provided for in the law of most of the countries in the study. It is provided for by the law in Spain, but in practice the police were found to routinely circumvent this by relying on a clause designed to ensure the physical safety of detained persons. Third, whilst some of the countries, especially Slovenia and Austria, have translations of the letter of rights available in a large number of languages, this is not the case in the majority of countries, and in Romania, no translations are available. Whilst the law in most of those countries provides for oral translation of the letter of rights, as was explained in section 2 of this report, interpretation is often not available in practice at the early stages of the criminal process. As a result, those suspects who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings are often left in ignorance of their procedural rights, at least at the early stages of the criminal process. It was also found that in many of the countries, there was no relevant regulation or protocol dealing with the notification of rights to suspects with vulnerabilities, such as children. The law in all of the countries requires information about the reasons for arrest to be provided at the time of, or following, an arrest, and evidence from the research suggests that this obligation is routinely complied with. However, in Bulgaria and Romania, a formal arrest may take place some time after the initial detention, or de facto arrest, so that the requirement of promptness is not satisfied. The major issue affecting many of the countries in the study, although not Spain, is the level of information that is provided. The research found that such information is often provided in a stereotypical fashion which does not explain the reasons for arrest by reference to the concrete circumstances of the case. In many of the countries, the position is similar with regard to information about the suspected offence. Article 6(1) of the Directive requires that information must be provided in such detail as is necessary to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings and the effective exercise of defence rights, and no later than the first official interview. Whilst this is reflected in the law of most of the countries in the study, in Bulgaria, provision of the information may be delayed until arraignment, which may be towards the end of the 24 hour period of detention. Whilst, in practice, the provision of the information is sometimes delayed in a number of the countries, the major concern in the majority of countries is, again, the level of information that is provided. The description of the information given by the researchers in Austria, as being ‘rudimentary or vague’, is typical of the position in most countries, other than Spain and Italy where the evidence suggests that the level of information normally provided is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Directive. 41