understand and to express themselves adequately in French before the tribunal. In this context, the Committee notes that the notion of a fair trial in article 14, paragraph 1, juncto paragraph 3 (f), does not imply that the accused be afforded the opportunity to express himself or herself in the language that he or she normally speaks or speaks with a maximum of ease. If the court is certain, as it follows from the decision of the Tribunal Correctionnel of Rennes, that the accused is sufficiently proficient in the court language, it need not take into account whether it would be preferable for the accused to express himself in a language other than the court language. 5.4 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the material placed before it by the parties. It bases its views on the following considerations. 5.5 The Committee has noted the author’s claim that the denial of an interpreter for himself and for a witness willing to testify on his behalf constituted a violation of article 14 of the Covenant. The Committee observes, as it has done on previous occasions,3 that article 14 is concerned with procedural equality; it enshrines, inter alia, the principle of equality of arms in criminal proceedings. The provision for the use of one official court language by States parties to the Covenant does not violate article 14 of the Covenant. Nor does the requirement of a fair hearing obligate States parties to make available to a person whose mother tongue differs from the official court language, the services of an interpreter, if that person is capable of understanding and expressing himself or herself adequately in the official language. Only if the accused or the witnesses have difficulties in understanding, or in expressing themselves in the court language, is it obligatory that the services of an interpreter be made available. 5.7 French law does not, as such, give everyone a right to speak his or her own language in court. Those unable to understand or speak French are provided with the services of an interpreter, pursuant to article 407 of the Code of Penal Procedure. This service would have been available to the author, had the facts required it; as the facts did not, he suffered no discrimination under article 26 on account of his language. 6. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as submitted do not disclose a violation of any of the provisions of the Covenant. 5.6 On the basis of the information before it, the Committee considers that the French courts complied with their obligations under article 14. The author has failed to show that he and the witness called on his behalf were unable to _______________ 3 See communication No. 273/1988 (B. d. B. v. the Netherlands), inadmissibility decision of 30 March 1989, para. 6.4. 95