interviews, results inadmissible in court – as well as the concrete benefits that the same stakeholders would gain from better implementation. This could greatly influence their willingness to cooperate and promote the necessary reforms. The question emerged during the project events whether it can be expected from the police to be interested in strengthening procedural rights, such as the right to information, when the primary interest is to ‘close’ a case as quickly as possible. During the project meetings, ‘police culture’ has been described as a very important factor preventing or driving change. The accounts of the police representatives from Belgium and Ireland at the regional consultations were particularly valuable as they showed what the driver to change can concretely look like. Hearing about the benefits of change from peers makes it of course much more acceptable for authorities (see below, § 2.5). EXAMPLE In Belgium, where a duty lawyer scheme is in place, an online platform is used to connect lawyers and suspected persons before the first interview by the police. The initiative originally stemmed from Bar Associations who closely collaborated with a developer to put the first version of the scheme in place, and then other actors from the criminal justice system, including the police, were associated to the process.21 Police authorities were invited to give feedback on the tool, on how to better adapt it to their daily practice. They are part of a working group dedicated to the application and take part in discussions on its successive updates. Contributing to the development of the application and thereby, to the better implementation of procedural rights in police custody, police authorities can also become actors of change, which in turn fosters their understanding of the benefits of such a tool and their willingness to use it. Collaboration and trust bring positive change and can overcome obstacles, including those of a cultural nature.22 As explained by a police officer involved in this process: “Police officers prefer suspects to be assisted by a lawyer. It is generally simpler and more constructive. It’s all the more simple because in Belgium we have a platform where we can contact lawyers very easily. The exercise (or waivers for adults only) of the right to a lawyer will be recorded on the platform. So the police explain to suspects that it is better to exercise the right to be assisted by a lawyer. They also reassure suspects about the financial aspects of legal aid. In this way, it can be said that they are trying to convince suspects to seek legal assistance. In some situations with more vulnerable persons, the police sometimes contact judicial authorities to get the agreement to consider these persons/suspects who waive as vulnerable persons because these persons do not seem to understand the consequences of waiving their rights.”23 Developing a vision of the effective implementation of procedural rights is best done by explicitly asking questions about a concrete image of change: • • • • • What is the change we want to see? How does the ideal state concretely look like? How do you recognise this ideal state? How do others recognise it? What would be different than today? Who would be significantly affected by the change and how? 21. Bureau de Bruxelles La Lettre, ‘Historique de la création de la permanence Salduz’ <http://www.barreaudebruxelles-lalettre.be/ document/PV/2016-03-15annexe.pdf> accessed 02 March 2023. 22. Carl Piron Ariane Deladrière Emilie Deveux, ‘Loi Salduz+ : Évaluation qualitative 2017-2018: Evaluation réalisée par le Service de la Politique criminelle’ (Service Public Fédéral Justice) 40. 23. Project CSO workshop, Brussels 18 October 2022. 15