Inside Police Custody 2 5. A remedy in the form of exclusion of evidence should be introduced in the legislation against violations of the right to attorney defence and legal aid during police detention. 6. An effective system of providing legal services out of office hours should be established throughout Bulgaria to include legal assistance during police detention. 7. A system of quality control of services provided by lawyers in police stations should be established at the level of local bar councils.   A.3 Hungary – Conclusions and Recommendations Major Issues The right to interpretation and translation The New CCP has not brought along fundamental conceptual changes in relation to interpretation and translation: its provisions comply with Article 2(1) of Directive 2010/64/EU and ensure the right to use the defendant’s mother tongue, national minority language or any other language spoken or understood by the defendant as well as the use of sign language interpretation. At the same time, it is a problem in the practice that the interpreter is seldom involved before the interrogation, even if the police perform procedural acts, which undermines the guaranteeing of procedural rights. It widens the possibilities that the participation of the interpreter may under the New CCP be ensured through telecommunication technologies. The bylaws of the New CCP have brought along significant improvements in order to ensure compliance with Article 2(2) of Directive 2010/64/EU, when it is expressly stated that the investigating authority shall ensure through the appointment of an interpreter that detained suspects could consult with their defence counsel at the premises of the detention, and that non-detained suspects could use the assistance of the interpreter appointed by the investigating authority in order to consult with their counsel before or after the procedural act. Using an interpreter hired by the defence for the purposes of consultation has remained to be difficult, the new provisions also fail to provide this possibility even for those who could afford to pay for the services of an interpreter. It is against Article 2(4) of Directive 2010/64/EU that neither the Old or New CCP, nor their bylaws determine any mechanism or procedure “to ascertain whether suspected or accused persons speak and understand the language of the criminal proceedings and whether they need the assistance of an interpreter”, and no such mechanism has evolved in the practice either. The respondents’ experience shows that the police often appoint the interpreter on the basis of the suspect’s citizenship. If the suspect speaks any Hungarian, no matter how little that is, no interpreter is appointed, and it happens that investigating officers try to convince suspects speaking rare languages to accept interpretation in English. The New CCP follows the concept of the Old CCP, when it only requires the translation of those documents that are to be served – a solution which is fundamentally compliant with Articles 3(1) and 3(2) of Directive 2010/64/EU, but neither of the procedural codes have provided the right to the defendants or their counsels to request the translation of those documents that they regard to be essential, which is against Article 3(3) of Directive 2010/64/EU. This results in a situation whereby those indigent defendants who cannot afford to pay for the translation of those documents that the state authorities are not obliged to 69