Inside Police Custody 2 have translated, are in a significantly disadvantageous situation compared to wealthy defendants who can pay for this service. Delays in the translation of documents have been mentioned as a serious problem as well. Neither the Old CCP, nor the New CCP prescribes that a separate decision shall be made about the need for translation or interpretation, so the Hungarian regulation is not compliant with Articles 2(5) and 3(5) of Directive 2010/64/EU. In accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2010/64/EU, suspects and accused persons are exempted from the costs arising in relation to their language use, irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings. The CCP provision according to which, if it is not possible to find an interpreter who meets the statutory criteria, any other person having “sufficient knowledge of a certain language” could be appointed as an ad hoc interpreter, may cause problems in practice with regard to the quality of interpretation and translation, as there are no measurable guarantees for what is sufficient, and persons not having a adequate command of a given language may be appointed. The lack of a formalised quality assurance system has also been mentioned as a problem in this regard. The right to information The New CCP prescribes that the defendants shall be informed about their rights under Article 3(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU when their participation in the criminal proceeding commences, and also stipulates the requirement of accessibility. As far as the practical implementation of the right is concerned, in the investigation phase defendants are informed of their rights at the beginning of the interrogation in such a way that the investigating officers read out aloud to them the cautions generated by the RobotZsaru NEO electronic system of the police, or provide information on the basis of that. The new version of this template (which was revised due to the coming into effect of the New CCP) contains information about all the rights listed in Article 3(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU. Nevertheless, according to the experiences of interviewees in the IPC research, the main problem is that the provision of information about all the rights is rare, and the way in which the information is provided is usually not accessible. Most respondents mentioned deficiencies with respect to the right of access to the case materials and the right to silence. It is a positive novelty that new rules make it possible that information about procedural rights be provided through “the handing over of a written information leaflet”. In compliance with Article 4 of Directive 2012/13/EU, the domestic legal provisions currently in force prescribe that suspects or accused persons who are arrested or detained are provided promptly with information about their rights in writing, in simple and accessible language and in a language they understand. In accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2012/13/EU, detainees may keep the written Letter of Rights in their possession. However, problems emerged with the accessibility of the above Letters of Rights too. The conclusion that defendants are not informed in a simple and accessible language in Hungary was also substantiated by a survey conducted on a sample of 200 persons by the HHC: we found that the level of comprehensibility of the Letter of Rights we had compiled using the texts produced by the Hungarian authorities was very low, only 38.5%. As far as providing information about the reasons for arrest or detention and the accusation is concerned, the rules included in the New CCP comply with the requirement included in Article 6 of Directive 2012/13/ 70