Justice in Europe

Across Europe, basic rights are being violated every day in police stations, court rooms and prisons. This is destroying the lives of innocent people, causing miscarriages of justice and undermining public faith in criminal justice systems.

At Fair Trials International we believe Europe should work together to improve respect for basic fair trial rights. We have led the calls for action by the European Union to improve standards of justice and our work is starting to pay-off. New laws have been passed guaranteeing some basic defence rights but much more remains to be done.

Until we have justice in Europe, human rights abuses will undermine the willingness of European countries to work together to fight crime. There are four arms to our Justice in Europe campaign: Reform of the EU’s fast-track extradition system, the European Arrest Warrant; stopping the excessive and unjustified use of pre-trial detention; ensuring effective safeguards for proposed evidence sharing laws; and building support for new laws guaranteeing basic defence rights across Europe.

This map gives an overview of the status of Justice in Europe. You can click on any of the EU’s 27 member countries for:

- Information on its record over the last five years in the European Court of Human Rights on fair trial rights and pre-trial detention;

- Cases of Fair Trials International clients (where relevant); – Criticisms by international organisations, the local press and domestic NGOs; and

- Practical guidance on criminal procedure and local sources of support (for some countries).

Below the map is a selection of quotes by legal practitioners in each country who were asked how well they think fair trial rights are being respected in practice (information collated by the Dutch NGO EuroMoS).

If you have any comments on the information contained here, or think we should include anything else, please email us at: office@fairtrials.net

Austria

In the past five years Austria has been held in violation of the right to a fair trial in 10 criminal cases, and has been criticised for the length of time cases take to come to trial.
The fees charged by the courts for copies of case documents make access to justice difficult for those who cannot afford to pay.
It has been reported that interpretation services are not sufficient.
Access to legal advice and representation is sometimes left to police discretion.
Racial discrimination by the police has been reported, along with claims that the system is inefficient at disciplining officers and fails to secure prosecutions against them, despite compelling evidence.
Practitioners tell us that police often do not tell suspects about the availability of legal aid, meaning that they often make statements before they have spoken to a lawyer (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU).
Learn more about Austria’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Belgium

Belgium has been found in violation of the right to a fair trial 11 times in the past five years. Nearly all of these relate to a failure to provide a fair public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment highlights prison overcrowding, which is leading to a deterioration of detention conditions.
Civil society reports highlight serious delays in the trial process, with some cases lasting up to 20 years, owing to a large backlog of cases.
There have been concerns about the ability of suspects to access legal advice, but recent reforms have led to some improvements.
The legal aid system suffers from insufficient quality control, which undermines fair trial standards (for more information read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU and a report by the Open Society Justice Initiative.)

See our note of advice on Belgium’s criminal procedure and local sources of help.
Learn more about Belgium’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Bulgaria

In the past five years Bulgaria has been held in violation of the right to liberty or a fair trial in over 80 cases. Most of the violations relate to the excessive length of criminal proceedings.
Bulgaria’s pre-trial detention system has been criticised for allowing limited access to lawyers, family members and medical facilities.
Serious concerns have been expressed by local NGOs about the judiciary’s lack of independence.
FTI cases, such as Michael Shields, have highlighted problems with flawed trial procedures in Bulgaria
There have been media reports of police brutality and corruption in Bulgaria, with the European Social Survey reporting that over 60% of people in Bulgaria thought that poor people would be treated worse by the police than rich people.
Lawyers tell us that while there is a constitutional right to legal aid in Bulgaria it is often not available in practice due to a lack of lawyers (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU).
Learn more about Bulgaria’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Cyprus

Cyprus has had only three violations found against it in criminal proceedings in the last five years.
All violations have been of the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time, and there are concerns about the length of trial proceedings in Cyprus (read about the case of Michael Binnington and Luke Atkinson).
Concerns have been raised about police brutality during arrest and questioning in Cyprus(read reports by The US State Department and The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Defence lawyers have highlighted problems with accessing legal aid in Cyprus, which is not usually available until after the initial questioning (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU).
Learn more about Cyprus’ record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Czech Republic

In the past five years the Czech Republic has been found in violation of the right to liberty and to a fair trial in ten decided cases.
There has been widespread criticism of unlawful and excessively long pre-trial detention in the Czech Republic (read our report on pre-trial detention).
There are reports that juveniles in pre-trial detention are held in poor conditions and with adult prisoners.
According to the European Social Survey, over 40% of people in the Czech Republic believe that the police in their country don’t make fair and impartial decisions very often, or at all.
Defence lawyers tell us that it is at the discretion of the police whether to allow the suspect access to the contact details of lawyers or to information about legal aid (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU).
Several reports have highlighted cases where the right to a fair trial has been violated due to lengthy delays in bringing defendants to trial.
Learn more about the Czech Republic’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Denmark

Denmark has had just two violations found against it in criminal proceedings in the last five years
Local NGOs have criticised a provision of Danish law which enables authorities to detain individuals for up to 12 hours without the need for them to be suspected of, or charged with, any offence.
Concerns have been raised by local NGOs about restrictions on access to case files affecting preparation of a defence, especially in terrorism cases.
The age of criminal responsibility has been lowered to 14 years and domestic media outlets have reported that there are inadequate safeguards to ensure minors receive a fair trial.
Defence lawyers have told us that while there are some special procedures in place for children and vulnerable suspects involved in criminal proceedings, these are often not followed in practice (read our report on the treatment of vulnerable suspects in the EU).
The European Social Survey reports that people have a high level of confidence in the procedural fairness of the Danish court system.
Learn more about Denmark’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Estonia

Estonia has been held in violation of the right to liberty and the right to a fair trial in six decided cases in the past five years.
Prison conditions are a cause of serious concern: reports note the lack of space and ventilation and that some detainees are held in cells for 24 hours per day (read a report by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights).
There are reports that there is an absence of measures to protect vulnerable groups (read our report on the treatment of vulnerable suspects in the EU).
It is reported that detainees do not have access to case materials and are not present at bail hearings, leaving them unable to challenge their detention.
Learn more about Estonia’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Finland

Finland has been found in violation of the right to a fair trial eight times in the past five years. All of the cases found a failure to try the defendant within a reasonable time.
While the length of pre-trial detention in Finland is fairly short, there are concerns that release pending trial is very rarely granted.
There are concerns that suspects are not sufficiently informed of their rights during criminal proceedings.
Lawyers tell us that the legal aid application is very complex, meaning that many suspects do not have access to legal advice at the early stage of a case (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU).
The absence of procedures to guarantee lawyer competence has been criticised; there is no requirement that defence lawyers receive training in criminal law.
Reports have indicated that trials in absentia are common in Finland, and that these can be conducted without the permission or knowledge of the accused.
According to the European Social Survey, people have a high level of confidence in procedural fairness in the courts and in their ability to convict the right people.
Learn more about Finland’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

France

France has been found in violation of the right to liberty in 10 cases in the past five years, seven of which found a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time.
Reports highlight excessive pre-trial detention in recent years. French laws allowing ordre public (the concept of ‘offence to public opinion’) to be taken into account in decisions imposing pre-trial detention may contravene Article 5 (read our report on pre-trial detention).
We have reported the cases of James Sheridan, a lorry driver not afforded the presumption of innocence and Deborah Dark, subject to an extradition request for a 20-year-old conviction she knew nothing about.
The Open Society Justice Initiative has highlighted concerns that the role of lawyers during police questioning remains restricted, despite recent reforms intended to bring France in line with ECtHR requirements.
According to the European Social Survey, there is relatively low confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the police.
See our note of advice on French criminal procedure and local sources of support.
Learn more about France’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Germany

Despite its size as the EU’s most populated country, over the past five years there have been two violations of the right to liberty and four of the right to a fair trial in criminal cases.
Detention conditions have been criticised and police and prison systems have been described as racist. There have been calls for an independent police commission to investigate police brutality and racism.
NGOs have also expressed concern about Germany’s involvement in CIA renditions and secret detentions.
Tracey Molamphy, a Fair Trials International client, succeeded in resisting extradition from Germany to Portugal.
A report by the Open Society Justice Initiative has highlighted concerns that classification by the authorities as "accused" rather than "suspect" can lead to people not receiving adequate access to legal advice.
Practitioners tell us that legal aid is not granted in Germany until the suspect appears before a judge. Many practitioners are unwilling to provide representation at the police questioning stage due to the risk that they will not be paid later if legal aid is refused (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU).
See our note of advice on German criminal procedure and local sources of help.
Learn more about Germany’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Greece

There has been over 90 violation findings of the right to a fair trial in the past five years, more than any other EU country. Nearly all of these relate to the failure to try the defendant within a reasonable time.
Greece has been widely criticised for over-use of pre-trial detention and excessive pre-trial detention periods as well for the difficulty of challenging detention decisions. We have highlighted cases where people have been held in pre-trial detention for lengthy periods of time in Greece, often in horrendous conditions (see, for example, Andrew Symeou and Ryan Johnson).
Cases of police brutality have been reported by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. These are often not adequately investigated by the authorities.
Lawyers tell us that legal aid is very rarely granted in Greece and that, in the rare cases where it is available, it is usually only when the suspect is brought before a judge 48 hours after arrest (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU).
Widespread corruption, inefficiency and a lack of legal certainty have all been reported as contributing to chronic delays in the Greek criminal justice system in an article by Elias Papaioannou on the Greek legal system.
Read our note of advice on Greek criminal procedure and local sources of help.
Learn more about Greece’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Hungary

Hungary has been found in violation of Article 6 in seven decided cases in the past five years, all of which found a violation of the right to a fair public hearing within a reasonable time.
There have been concerns about the right to access a lawyer in Hungary. However, in March 2013 the Hungarian Constitutional Court held that lawyers in criminal proceedings must be told about the date and place of questioning of suspects with sufficient time to enable them to attend. Read more about the decision in a summary prepared by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee.
Pre-trial detention conditions have been widely criticised, with reports of severe overcrowding and minority ethnic groups being particularly at risk.
There are concerns about restrictions on access to a lawyer in pre-trial detention (read a report by the Open Society Justice Initiative).
We have reported on lengthy delays to the trial process in Hungary (read about the case of Michael Turner, who was extradited to Hungary in November 2009, spent months in pre-trial detention and still had not been tried as of October 2012).
Serious concerns have been expressed about new laws that could limit the independence of the judiciary.
According to the European Social Survey, Hungarians have relatively low confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the police, and high numbers of people believe that police in Hungary take bribes.
Defence lawyers tell us that legal aid lawyers are appointed and funded by the police, leading to concerns that the police will in practice call lawyers who are less likely to cause problems with the investigation (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU).
Learn more about Hungary’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Ireland

Ireland has been found in violation of the right to a fair trial four times in the past five years by the European Court of Human Rights.
Concerns have been raised about the length of time that pre-trial detainees are held without charge and the poor conditions in which they are held ( read a report by the Irish Penal Reform Trust).
Fair Trials International has highlighted problems with excessive lengths of pre-trial detention in Ireland (read our report on pre-trial detention).
The lack of access to legal advice during pre-trial detention in Ireland has been widely criticised. Ireland has chosen not to opt into the draft Directive on access to legal advice (read a joint letter commenting on this, from Fair Trials and other leading NGOs, including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties).
Defence lawyers report that there are adequate safeguards in place for minors involved in criminal proceedings, but that provision for other vulnerable suspects is limited (read our report on the treatment of vulnerable suspects in the EU).
Learn more about Ireland’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Italy

Italy has been found in violation of the right to a fair trial in 15 cases in the past five years, all of which relate to the failure to try the defendant within a reasonable time.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has reported unacceptably long delays in bringing defendants to trial in Italy, as well as excessive length and overuse of pre-trial detention.
The US State Department has reported that police sometimes engage in ‘informal’ conversations with people before arrest to delay their right to access legal advice.
Defence lawyers have told us that the legal aid application process in Italy is very bureaucratic and can rarely be completed during the police custody stage. Lawyers are unwilling to take on legal aid cases due to the low compensation levels and delays in payment, sometimes lasting up to four years (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU).
Read more about Fair Trials’ client Edmond Arapi, who was subject to an extradition request from Italy for a crime he could not possibly have committed.
Read our note of advice on Italian criminal procedure and local sources of help.
Learn more about Italy’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Latvia

The past five years has seen seven violations against Latvia for breaching the right to liberty in criminal cases, with most criticising defendants’ inability to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.
The length of pre-trial detention has been widely criticised, as has Latvia’s failure to enforce the legal maximum of 18 months pre-trial detention and the lack of alternatives to detention (read our report on pre-trial detention in the EU).
Latvia enjoys the highest conviction rate – an ‘implausible’ 97% of those tried are found guilty.
Access to a lawyer can be difficult, as can access to case materials.
Learn more about Latvia’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Lithuania

Lithuania has been found in violation of the right to a fair trial in 12 cases in the past five years, all for a failure to provide a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
Concerns have been raised by local NGOs about the overuse of pre-trial detention in Lithuania, in particular that legislation to allow for extensions of detention in exceptional circumstances is being abused.
There are reports that the excessive length of proceedings in Lithuania and a lack of a presumption of innocence contribute to very low acquittal rates (read a report by the Human Rights Monitoring Institute).
NGOs and defence lawyers have raised concerns about the lack of competence of lawyers who work in the legal aid system in Lithuania (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU and a report by the Open Society Justice Initiative).
Defence lawyers indicate that the authorities in Lithuania do generally take into account the position of vulnerable suspects, who are held separately from other detainees and can have private hearings (read our report on the treatment of vulnerable suspects in the EU).
Learn more about Lithuania’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg has been found in violation of the right to a fair trial six times in the past five years. All of the cases found a failure to try the defendant within a reasonable time.
There are reports that pre-trial detention is used excessively, and that there is no maximum limit on the amount of time a defendant can be held (read our report on pre-trial detention).
Reports have criticised the lack of a proper appeals procedure in Luxembourg; it has been reported that recent proposed reforms do not go far enough (read comments by the Ombudsman of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg).
Defence lawyers tell us that while procedures are in place to protect minors in criminal proceedings, the needs of other vulnerable groups are poorly protected in Luxembourg (read our report on the treatment of vulnerable suspects in the EU).
Learn more about Luxembourg’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Malta

In the past five years Malta has been held in violation of the right to liberty in three criminal cases.
The length of pre-trial detention in Malta and excessive delays to the trial process have been widely criticised (read a US State Department report).
Concerns have been raised about the high proportion of pre-trial detainees in prisons.
Several reports highlight the discriminatory treatment of foreign nationals, who are rarely granted release pending trial.
Malta’s arrest procedures have been criticised by international organisations and by domestic media. In particular, suspects are frequently denied legal representation.
We have highlighted problems with minors being questioned in Malta without an appropriate adult present (see the case of James Milton in our report on the treatment of vulnerable suspects in the EU).
Learn more about Malta’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands has been found in violation of the right to liberty in five cases in the past five years, and a number of reports have raised concerns about lengthy pre-trial detention, which can last up to two years.
There has been widespread criticism about heavy restrictions on access to legal advice during police interrogations. The Netherlands has criticised the draft Directive guaranteeing suspects access to legal advice (read a joint letter from Fair Trials and other leading NGOs)
Anti-terrorism measures in the Netherlands have been criticised by academics and NGOs for contravening the ECtHR
There is concern about the juvenile justice system in the Netherlands due to delays in providing appropriate facilities for minors and an increase in the maximum period of detention applicable to them (read a report by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights).
Learn more about the Netherlands’ record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Poland

Over the past five years, Poland has been held in violation of the right to liberty in 28 criminal cases and the right to a fair trial in 44 criminal cases. Many of these involved delays to proceedings and a lack of access to legal representation (read about the case of Robert Horchner).
Reports suggest defendants are often denied access to court files during investigations (read a report by the ombudsman in Poland).
Lawyers tell us that in practice legal aid is not usually granted until suspects appear before a court 48 hours after arrest, meaning that people who cannot afford a lawyer may be denied legal representation at the police custody stage (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU).
Poland has drawn criticism for its excessive use of European Arrest Warrants. Since the EAW system came in, Poland has issued thousands more Warrants than any other country. We have helped many clients facing extradition to Poland. Natalia Gorczowska was threatened with separation from her baby, over a minor offence for which she had been on probation in Poland years earlier.
There are concerns that suspects are denied information about their rights until they are formally charged, despite it being possible to detain them for up to 48 hours (see a report by the Open Society Justice Initiative)
According to the European Social Survey, over 60% of people in Poland thought that poor people would be treated worse by the police than rich people.
See our note of advice on Polish criminal procedure and local sources of help.
Learn more about Poland’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases
Read our Polish communiqué on Pre-trial Detention.

Portugal

In the past five years Portugal has been held in violation of the right to a fair trial in six decided cases, nearly all of which relate to the failure to try the defendant within a reasonable time (see Fair Trials International’s clients Graham Mitchell and Serena Wylde).
International NGOs have raised concerns about police brutality on arrest and during detention (read reports by the US State Department and the UN Committee Against Torture).
The President of the Portuguese Bar Association has commented on the inexperience of Portuguese judges.
According to the European Social Survey, over 50% of people in Portugal thought that the courts would be more likely to convict people from minority racial/ethnic groups.
There have been criticisms in the domestic media about the lack of access to a lawyer whilst in police custody.
We have raised concerns about trial procedures and standards of interpretation in Portugal (see the case of Garry Mann).
See our note of advice on Portuguese criminal procedure and local sources of help.
Learn more about Portugal’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Romania

Romania has been found in violation of the right to liberty and the right to a fair trial in nearly 50 cases in the past five years. While a number of these related to the length of proceedings, it was also found to have violated a number of other rights, including the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
There is widespread criticism of the excessive length of pre-trial detention in Romania(read our report on pre-trial detention in the EU).
There are ongoing concerns about the lack of efficiency of the judicial process and about the inconsistency of judicial decisions in Romania(read a 2011 European Commission report).
We have highlighted problems in Romania with the right to a retrial when convicted in absentia, as required by international law (read about the case of Da An Chen).
Defence lawyers report that there are numerous problems with the operation of the legal aid system in Romania and that lawyers receive very little cooperation from police or prosecutors (read our report on the availability of legal aid in the EU).
Learn more about Romania’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Slovakia

Slovakia has been found in violation of the right to liberty in 24 cases in the past five years. Nearly half of these relate to a failure to allow a challenge to the lawfulness of detention and for this to be speedily decided by court.
Several reports have criticised the excessive length of criminal proceedings in Slovakia and the delays in court hearings.
Concerns have been raised about mistreatment of suspects while in police custody, with widespread reports of racial discrimination against members of the Roma community.
Defence lawyers tell us that there are limited safeguards in place to protect vulnerable suspects, and that these are applied at police discretion and therefore vary widely from case to case (read our report on the treatment of vulnerable suspects in the EU).
Learn more about Slovakia’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Slovenia

There have been three violation findings at the European Court of Human Rights in the last five years, mainly as a result of delays to trial proceedings.
Slovenia’s record on pre-trial detention has been improving: there were no violation findings on the right to liberty in the five year period and improvements have been reported in the areas of police custody and imprisonment.
According to the European Social Survey, people in Slovenia have little confidence in procedural fairness, and relatively high numbers believe that courts in Slovenia take bribes.
Practitioners tell us that while there are effective safeguards in place to protect vulnerable suspects at the police custody stage, these are often poorly enforced during trials (read our report on the treatment of vulnerable suspects in the EU).
Learn more about Slovenia’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

Spain

Spain has been held in violation of the right to a fair trial in 16 decided cases in the past five years, almost all of which concerned the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
Incommunicado detention is a serious problem, with detainees deprived of the right to notify contacts of their arrest and to appoint legal counsel for up to 13 days in security cases.
We have reported on the excessive use of secreto de sumario, which restricts the detainee’s access to case materials (see the case of Anthony Reynolds).
We have highlighted the case of Peter Devlin, acquitted seven years after his initial arrest, and of Teresa Daniels, extradited to serve a sentence for a closed case despite a lack of evidence.
According to the European Social Survey, about 50% of people in Spain thought that the Spanish courts would be more likely to convict people from minority racial/ethnic groups.
Defence lawyers tell us that special safeguards for vulnerable suspects are not always properly applied in Spain (read our report on the treatment of vulnerable suspects in the EU and the case of Andrew Dmytruk).
See our note of advice on Spanish criminal procedure and local sources of help.
Learn more about Spain’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases
Download our communiqué on Pre-trial Detention in Spain.

Sweden

Sweden has had only one infringement ruling in relation to these rights in the past five years.
Concerns have been raised about the restrictive conditions in which pre-trial detainees are held in Sweden and the lack of alternatives to pre-trial detention (read our Q&A about pre-trial detention in Sweden).
Sweden generally has good systems for upholding defence rights but there are some concerns that suspects and defendants are not always notified of their right to a lawyer.
There have been some isolated incidents of ill treatment by police in Sweden, but these are usually thoroughly investigated (read a report by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture).
According to the European Social Survey, half the people surveyed thought that the Swedish courts were more likely to find people guilty from minority racial/ethnic groups.
Learn more about Sweden’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases.

United Kingdom

The UK has had few infringement rulings from the European Court of Human Rights, but in the past decade one third of all violations have involved the right to a fair trial.
The UK’s extradition system has been criticised with several inquiries calling for reforms (click here to read more about our campaign for reform). Fair Trials International has highlighted a number of cases of unjust extradition from the UK under the European Arrest Warrant (see for example: Andrew Symeou, Garry Mann, Deborah Dark and Edmond Arapi).
Periods spent in pre-trial detention are short compared to other EU countries but pre-trial detention conditions have been criticised (read the report by the UK’s Chief Inspector of Prisons).
Concerns have been raised about falling standards of interpretation in UK criminal cases.
Attempts by the Government to cap spending on legal aid have been criticised as having an adverse effect on equality of arms (see a report by the Open Society Justice Initiative).
The UK has opted into the EU Directives on interpretation and information upon arrest but has failed to opt into the directive on the right to legal advice (read a letter from Fair Trials and other leading NGOs).
See our note of advice for people arrested in England and Wales
Learn more about the United Kingdom’s record in upholding liberty and fair trial rights in criminal cases

loading map...

Vestibulum consectetur hendrerit enim, facilisis scelerisque libero mattis sit amet. Praesent ac purus ac arcu semper molestie. Quisque sollicitudin luctus nulla, at auctor nisi cursus at.
Vestibulum consectetur hendrerit enim, facilisis scelerisque libero mattis sit amet. Praesent ac purus ac arcu semper molestie. Quisque sollicitudin luctus nulla, at auctor nisi cursus at.
Vestibulum consectetur hendrerit enim, facilisis scelerisque libero mattis sit amet. Praesent ac purus ac arcu semper molestie. Quisque sollicitudin luctus nulla, at auctor nisi cursus at.
Vestibulum consectetur hendrerit enim, facilisis scelerisque libero mattis sit amet. Praesent ac purus ac arcu semper molestie. Quisque sollicitudin luctus nulla, at auctor nisi cursus at.
Vestibulum consectetur hendrerit enim, facilisis scelerisque libero mattis sit amet. Praesent ac purus ac arcu semper molestie. Quisque sollicitudin luctus nulla, at auctor nisi cursus at.

When suspects cannot afford to pay €100 per hour for an emergency lawyer, the police do not inform them that the costs can be covered by legal aid. As a result the service is rarely used and subjects regularly make statements without legal assistance.

Sometimes interpreters lack independence from the police. Interpretations can be incomplete or inaccurate.

During police custody, not even the lawyer has full access to the case file. To get a copy of the file a fee must be paid.

The Belgian State has failed to organize any system of remuneration for legal assistance since the Salduz case. As a result, many lawyers have refused to participate in the legal aid system for assistance during police custody.

Sometimes the interpreter is a police officer who has taken an oath. I don’t consider a police officer to be fully independent.

As regards the right to access a lawyer, police officers often pressure the suspect to either waive his right in writing, or to ‘choose’ the assistance of the duty lawyer provided by the police.

Access to a lawyer is usually not provided during the first 24 hours of arrest, and is only available once charges have been brought. By that point the suspect will have made written statements which may form part of the legal grounds for his accusation.

My clients often complain of physical or psychological police brutality during the process of questioning.

The doctors examining suspects come from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. We have heard complaints by clients that after being beaten, they were examined by a doctor who then found no traces of brutality.

The main problem is the impunity of the judges for their mistakes. There are many judges who have had little or no experience of judicial practice before their assignment.

Sometimes the arrest of a suspect will be delayed in order to take an incriminating statement first. The subject will then be arrested and given his rights.

Police sometimes exhibit brutal behaviour and cause psychological stress to suspects.

The major barrier to a fair trial is the slow operation of the courts, which are unable to resolve cases within a reasonable time. This is also the most common reason for complaints to the Czech constitutional court and the European Court of Human Rights.

The reality is that review of continued detention is a simple formality in many cases. Reasons are not given for continued detention and previous decisions are simply repeated.

Generally speaking, the courts and judges feel that their most important task is to protect the state, and not to ensure that justice is done.

The police have to present charges as a precondition of arrest, but these charges can be changed and extended during police interrogations.

The lack of quality control system for interpreters means that there are effectively no guarantees as to the quality of their work.

Detention facilities are often old (dating back to the Soviet era) and in poor condition. Sometimes they are overcrowded.

Some materials are held to be sensitive on the grounds of national security and are not shown to the defence.

The suspect may be unable to contact a lawyer, and he may be wrongly informed by the police that the lawyer is unavailable. The police tend to be irritated by the presence of a lawyer during interrogation.

It is not unknown for police to use pressure during detention in order to obtain a confession from the suspect.

When the plaintiff is the state, the starting point for the suspect seems to be more like a presumption of guilt than of innocence.

Inhumane treatment can occur in police custody before a lawyer is present.

Conditions in pre-trial detention are very bad. There are problems with hygiene, cell space, fresh air, toilets, and food.

Lawyers are badly paid under the legal aid system, which means that most poor people have a very poor defence.

Sometimes suspects are hit or put under pressure (“You will be in jail for a long time if you don’t speak with us”).

Pre-trial custody is abused; detainees are encouraged to declare their own guilt.

Sometimes the police fabricate answers during questioning or change the content of the confession. As there is no audio recording, lawyers have no way of proving that this goes on.

There are problems with police brutality. The subject is often forced to confess to a crime that he has never committed.

There are times that police custody conditions are inhuman. The cells are tiny, they don’t have space to move and there are no medical facilities.

Emergency lawyer access does not always result in an effective defence. The actual presence of the lawyer is not required during police custody and interrogations can be held at times as unreasonable as 3am. Sometimes the lawyer is notified by phone 15 minutes before the interrogation.

Police quite often interview a suspect without a lawyer, convincing him that he does not need one if he is innocent.

A minor killed himself in police custody with his own shoe lace.

In general I would say that the efficiency of the prosecution, which is above 90%, shows that the equality of arms is not respected enough.

A suspect’s right to remain silent is compromised by the fact that inferences can be drawn from the suspect refusing to answer questions. This is made more difficult by the fact that lawyers are not allowed to be present during interrogation.

There is not a sufficient legal obligation on the police to provide information about the charges to the suspect or his lawyer. This lacuna can be exploited, and is, by some policemen.

Inhumane treatment occurs very often in order to obtain a confession. The lawyer can only see the suspect with the authorisation of the public prosecutor, and this is rarely granted.

Police officers cannot question suspects without a lawyer present, but in practice they do so in order to obtain a self incriminating statement.

Overcrowding is a real issue.

During the trial many judges intervene to prevent defence lawyers from cross examining the prosecution witness. The trial is often a charade.

Quite often police orally encourage suspects NOT to use the assistance of a lawyer. They offer certain deals as well as threaten suspects in this respect.

In theory, the lawfulness of police custody can be reviewed on request of the defence, but this complaint procedure is not effective since the maximum time for police custody is 48h, but the complaint must be answered within 3 days.

A suspect is not entitled to access the case file until termination of the pre-trial stage. The issue has become even more complicated due to amendments which provide that a suspect is not even entitled to access the materials which form the basis of his detention.

In some cases the prosecution reaches agreements with suspects that, for example, the suspect will give evidence against his accomplices and will receive a better sentence. Such agreements are not legal and difficult to prove.

A suspect rarely understands his right not to incriminate himself and normally it is not explained to him.

Too many suspects are being convinced by the police that they do not need a lawyer at the custody stage, that it would only cost time and money, and that the lawyer cannot assist during the process anyway.

The presumption of innocence is not sufficiently applied. Suspects are being detained too easily and remain in custody too long.

The principle of ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ represents the most serious breach of the right to a fair trial in Malta.

Defence lawyers are granted 1 hour to consult with their client before the interrogation by the police. This is done without knowing what the investigation is about and without knowing what evidence is held by the police. Advice has to be given in a vacuum!

Sometimes suspects are told that they have to spend the night in jail if they want to consult a lawyer which means they are pushed not to exercise their right to consultation.

The suspect has no access to the case file before the hearing. You can discuss the file with your client but not in private. There is a police security presence in the room so that you cannot speak freely.

In practice, the court often only appoints the state-appointed lawyer a few days or weeks after the charges. Therefore the defendant is without a lawyer during the first interview(s).

During police custody neither the suspect nor the lawyer has access to the case files. Theoretically the prosecutor is the authority that decides whether access is granted.

Suspects are left for over 20 hours with no food or drink. Cell conditions are terrible. Lawyers have no right to inspect the detention conditions.

Poland is recognised as a country in which decisions on pre-trial detention are issued too easily, for quite long periods of time.

The preparatory proceedings are definitely too long. Temporary arrest is abused; it is used too often and for too long, and often replaces the actual penalty.

Sometimes police officers threaten or beat people, but this is becoming less common. More common is pressure for the suspect to make an ‘off the record’ confession and not to exercise their right to access a lawyer.

Some detention facilities have very poor hygiene conditions, with regard to toiletries in particular.

Often suspects claim that they have been brutalised mentally or physically. Police custody is overcrowded, the conditions are poor and in some cases suspects are sent to state prison during police custody.

The major problem I believe to be the ignorance about fundamental rights on the part of police officers.

Police officers, prosecutors and courts often ignore the main principles of criminal procedure and the suspect’s rights. Their decisions are often unfounded and without any logical basis.

There are problems with detention conditions – bad hygiene, bad food and drink, bad relationships between the people held in custody.

Often it is not possible to anticipate judicial decisions. Courts often ignore case law and evidence.

Public opinion and media coverage can sometimes pressure the court to make a particular decision where a case is very notorious.

It is possible to go for quite a long period without a lawyer if you do not have any money.

Lawyers have no access to the police trial, no private interview prior to questioning, and no possibility of active intervention during the interrogation. Without access to the file we are unable to give correct legal advice.

I have NEVER seen a judicial document translated and handed to a subject.

The main barriers to a fair trial are the absence of a real presumption of innocence and the breach of procedural safeguards.

I am disturbed by the fact that we don’t provide translations during investigations. This puts the defendant at a disadvantage and provides no equality of arms.

Non-nationals are kept in custody to prevent them from returning home. I believe these form a large portion of our ‘inmates’ in pre-trial custody. It often stands out as disproportionate to the crime that they are accused of.

Some suspects spend a very long time in custody. Sweden has no real limit for pre-trial detention. This is a heavy burden, especially if the subject is isolated, which is very common.

Many individuals find themselves before the court with no prospect of receiving legal aid. They can find themselves convicted of offences which they did not commit, because they did not have proper legal representation. Without proper legal aid and access to lawyers, the right to a fair trial is being impacted upon.

The process in relation to disclosure is one of the most common barriers to a fair trial. Prosecution lawyers regularly refuse to disclose material which could have assisted the defence. As a result, defence lawyers can miss key pieces of evidence which could have turned the case in their client’s favour.

Occasionally some officers resort to brutality or coercion, particularly at large gatherings of people during protest marches.