Inside Police Custody 2 as well as the right to the translation of the talks with the defence attorney. The latter, however, is often lacking in effect: in 25% of the cases examined, the interpreters arrived when the hearing was already begun, thus not translating the first interview. This absence was generally due to the lack of personnel in the Court, which forced the interpreters to pass frantically from one hearing to another. Even interpreters, like lawyers, make their first appearance in Court, and not in the police station or in other places where there is deprivation of freedom (except for very rare cases, concerning the most serious crimes). This late appearance has sometimes as a consequence that the foreign national discovers the reasons for his/her arrest only at the time of the hearing. The research showed a certain lack of confidence in the quality of the interpretation offered by the professionals made available by the Courts and the lack of attention of lawyers and judges to the right to translation, considered a fundamental aspect of the Stockholm Roadmap. The lack of a national register of translators and interpreters – to which little payment is reserved (around 5 Euros per hour), usually paid with several years of delay – is a problem. Finally, in all the cases examined in which the linguistic level of the interviewees was mediocre (5, on a scale from 1 to 10) no interpreter was called. This is a problematic aspect, partly a consequence of the superficiality with which the judicial authority verifies the linguistic knowledge of the accused. In relation to the right to information, on the one hand the letter of rights was introduced and practical arrangements were made for it to be effectively disseminated. However, there are still too many stakeholders to whom the letter is not delivered (38% of the prisoners or former prisoners interviewed), most of whom are foreign nationals. It has also been found, in some police stations, the practice of not delivering the letter. Law enforcement officers merely show a copy of it, which they then put away. It was also found that access to the case file by defence lawyers can incur various obstacles. Similarly, the consultation time turns out to be excessively reduced. 25% of the interviewed lawyers said they had less than 5 minutes available to consult the case file and prepare an adequate defence (in the context of validation hearings or ‘speed trials’). The problem of the lack of confidentiality and of time available for the interviews between lawyers and defendants before the validation hearings and the ‘speed trials’ was identified. It is worth pointing out that the first interview takes place in almost all cases just before the hearing, in the Court, and not in the police station or in the Carabinieri stations. In 16% of the cases examined the confidentiality was not fully respected, due to the presence of some escort agents or more generally because of the places where the talks were held (corridors of the Courts, cells of the Courts in which more people were hosted; corners of the rooms where the hearing takes place). 62.5% of the lawyers said they did not have enough time to prepare for the defence. The research found that sometimes ex officio lawyers are not present at the hearings, although the law obliges them to be present. The penalties provided are rarely imposed. The code of criminal procedure allows the judge to appoint on the spot and at the moment another defender, with the result that in some cases there are extremely fragmented and ineffective defenses. It is, however, necessary to add that the mechanism with which the defence lawyers ex officio are assigned shifts onto the lawyers all the human and professional costs. In case of non-payment, recovery procedures are actually very complex and payments (as well as in cases of legal aid) can be delayed by as much as eight years. 76