Foreword

• Author: Michael O'Flaherty
• Profession: Director
• Pages: 3-3

3

Foreword

Protecting the right s of anyone suspected or a ccused of a crime is an essentia l element of the rule of law. Court s,

prosecutors and pol ice off‌icers need to have the power and means to enforce the law – but tru st in the outcomes of

their effort s will quickly erode without effec tive safeguards to control how their powers are actual ly used.

Such safeguards take on va rious forms. Everyone i s presumed to be innocent un til found guilty by a cour t of law.

People have the right to remai n silent and not incrim inate themselves. They s hould be told why they are bei ng

arrested or what they are be ing charged with. They should a lso be told what their rights are, inc luding that they have

the right to a lawyer. In certai n situations, people also have a right to interp retation and tra nslation.

EU Member States are boun d to protect these right s, but do not necessaril y def‌ine or apply them i n the same way.

This, too, can weaken trust – inc luding between Mem ber States, interferin g with effective coope ration in matters

relating to the EU’s area of freedom, se curity and justice.

Based on intervi ews with over 250 respondents in eight Mem ber States, this report looks at how cer tain key criminal

procedural right s are applied in prac tice. FRA reached out to judg es, prosecutors, poli ce off‌icers, lawyers and st aff

of bodies that monito r prisons; as well as defenda nts who were either arrested i n the country in which t hey were

charged or in anothe r EU country base d on a European arrest warrant.

The research shows that procedu ral rights can be undermined i n different ways. Some police off‌icers treat suspe cts

like witnesses to avoid trigg ering their right s. Others use such le galistic languag e when informing peo ple of their

rights, or of the cha rges against them, that t he information is of lit tle help. Even individua ls who do manage to

secure a lawyer often get to s peak to them only brief‌ly o r in busy corridors, ha mpering proper repres entation.

Language issue s can bring addition al hurdles. Finall y, cases involving European arrest wa rrants require naviga ting

two different legal s ystems, leaving even more room for error.

We hope that highlight ing these challenges encou rages Member States to step up thei r efforts to ensure that crim inal

procedural rights are applied both effectively and consistently throughout the EU.

Michael O’Flaherty

Directo r