categories of individuals are not prohibited from attending,744 for example, because there is no disabled access. P. The right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he/she cannot understand or speak the language used in court745 133. This right applies to criminal proceedings, although it is possible in exceptional cases that this may also apply in civil proceedings.746 It will apply to aliens as well as nationals of the State in question747 and to all stages of proceedings, both written and oral,748 which are necessary for the individual to defend themselves.749 134. It must be shown that the level of understanding impacts on the enjoyment of the rights.750 Where, for example, the trial relating to the rape of a girl who was a member of an ethnic minority was held in Spanish without interpretation and the victim and others were unable to understand, a violation of ICCPR was held.751 Similar protection would apply to those unable to understand the proceedings due to speech or hearing impediments. 135. Cultural elements also need to be taken into account as to the rights of particularly vulnerable groups including migrants, ethnic minorities and women.752 136. The right is not subject to qualification, and even if the accused is subsequently convicted, she or he cannot be ordered to pay the costs of an interpreter.753 However this right does not provide a right to conduct proceedings in the language of the defendant’s choice.754 Q. Double jeopardy 137. This is the principle that no one should be tried or punished for an offence for which they have already been convicted or acquitted.755 744 Ibid. Human Rights Committee, No.451/1991, Harward v Norway, para 9.5; No.219/1986, Guesdon v France, para 102. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, 16/99, 1 October 1999, para 120. 746 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 13. 747 General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 40 748 Ibid. See also Harward v Norway, para 9.5. 749 Communication 1033/2001, Singarasa v Sri Lanka, 24 July 2004. 750 Ibid. 751 Communication 1610/2007, L. N. P. v Argentina, HRC 18 July 2011. 752 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, A/HRC/8/4, paras 29-30. 753 Ozturk v Germany, 21 February 1984. 754 Communication 219/1986, Guesdon v France, UN Doc CCPR/C/39/D/219/1986 (1990). Communication 439/1990, C. L. D. v France, UN Doc CCPR/C/43/D/439/1990 (1991). 755 Article 14(7) ICCPR; Article 19(1) Arab Charter. See also Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 55; UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion 36/1999, UN Doc/E/CN.4/2001/14/Add.1 (2000), para 9. 745 124