Inside Police Custody 2 showed that, whilst this was normally done, on some occasions the letter of rights was not served until after the interrogation had commenced, or sometimes even at the end of the interrogation. In Spain, the law provides (in accordance with the Directive on the right to information) that suspects are entitled to keep the letter of rights in their possession in a manner that is compatible with their physical safety. In the cases observed, suspects in detention were never allowed to keep the letter of rights in their possession – the exception regarding the need to protect physical safety was routinely used to prevent suspects from keeping it in their possession. Whilst, in the absence of observation, it is possible for researchers to ask former suspects about their experiences regarding the letter of rights, concerns raised by them are easily dismissed by the relevant authorities on the basis that this source of information is unreliable. The findings of observational research are, by contrast, incontrovertible. The Directives require member states to transmit the measures adopted to give effect to them to the European Commission. The authorities in all of the countries in the study complied with this obligation. However, the value of this requirement is limited because the national authorities do not have to provide any contextual information, nor specify how the measures reflect each aspect of the relevant Directive. It was clear that in some countries in the study, considerable effort had been made to ensure that the provisions of the Directives were transposed, at least as far as laws and regulations were concerned. However, this was not the case in other countries, and in all of the countries there were examples of failures to adequately transpose certain provisions. In Austria, whilst the legal provisions on information about procedural rights are fairly comprehensive, there is no requirement to take into account the particular needs of vulnerable suspects or accused persons (as required by Art. 3(2) of the Directive on the right to information), and no explicit provision that a detained suspect be allowed to keep the letter of rights throughout their detention (as required by Art. 4(1)). In Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania, there are various limitations on free interpretation of lawyer/client consultations despite the fact that there is a clear obligation to provide for free interpretation, irrespective of outcome, in Articles 2(2) and 4 of the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation. Many other examples of failures to fully transpose the provisions of the Directives into national laws are provided throughout this report. The countries of greatest concern, with regard to transposition of the Directives, are Bulgaria and Romania. The three Directives which are the subject of this study are all expressed to apply to persons from the time that they are made aware by the competent authorities, by official notification or otherwise, that they are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence. This reflects the case-law of the ECtHR, which has consistently held that the procedural rights under Article 6(3) of the ECHR apply from the time that the situation of the suspect or accused has been substantially affected. The official view adopted in Bulgaria is that the initial 24-hour period of police detention is an administrative procedure, and that therefore the Directives do not apply. In Romania, the police have power to take a person to a police station without formally arresting them and this, similarly, is treated as an administrative procedure which does not attract the protections afforded by the Directives. Thus, the Directives are deemed not to apply to persons who are, de facto, arrested or detained. Another generic issue concerns the transparency of processes, and the ability of suspected and accused persons to challenge failures to comply with national laws that reflect Directive requirements. In most countries, the processes for challenging the way in which procedural rights are implemented are incorporated into the general trial process, which makes it difficult for suspected and accused persons to contest their application in particular circumstances in a way that provides an effective remedy. This difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that, in those countries that have schemes for out-of-court disposals or speedy trial, there may never by a trial process during the course of which a challenge may be made. 57