2. Parameters for assessing interpretation needs The ECtHR has also made some useful statements in cases where it is alleged that the failure to provide interpretation violated Article 6 ECHR. In Hermi v. Italy,17 the ECtHR said: ’ (…) the issue of the defendant’s linguistic knowledge is vital and that [the Court] must also examine the nature of the offence with which the defendant is charged and any communications addressed to him by the domestic authorities, in order to assess whether they are sufficiently complex to require a detailed knowledge of the language used in court’18 (emphasis added). One thing can be drawn from this statement: that the issue whether someone needs language assistance is something assessed by reference to the specific linguistic ability of the person in light of the specifics of the subject matter. The factors that appear in the case-law are these:     The person not being a native speaker of the forum language;19 The distinction between being able to express oneself and being able to read documents if this is required;20 The financial, social and cultural situation of the person, including the length of time spent in the country;21 and The person being illiterate.22 It should also be noted that there is a particular focus on the relevance of this analysis at the investigative stage. As mentioned above, the ECtHR has established the right to interpretation as akin to the right of access to a lawyer as an important protection at the early stages of criminal proceedings. This has led the ECtHR to place special emphasis on linguistic ability at this stage: ‘Taking into account the importance of the investigation stage as reiterated above, the Court is not convinced that the applicant had a sufficient understanding of the questions she was being asked or that she was able to express herself adequately in Turkish, and certainly not to a level which would justify reliance on her statements as evidence against her at the trial (…) Without the help of an interpreter, she could not reasonably have appreciated the consequences of accepting to be questioned without the assistance of a lawyer in a criminal case concerning the investigation of particularly grave criminal offences’23 The ECtHR is clearly mindful that the process during the initial phase has a significant impact upon the conduct of the defence, and that the failure to provide interpretation risks impacting on the way the suspect makes decisions in a context when their statements are likely to be used in the proceedings. A careful assessment of whether they need interpretation at that stage is all the more vital. 17 Case of Hermi v. Italy, App. no. 18114/02 (Judgment of 18 October 2006) Paragraph. 71. 19 Case of Amer v. Turkey, App. no 25720/02 (Judgment of 13 January 2009), para. 82. 20 Ibid. 21 Case of Katritsch v. France App. no 22575/08 (Judgment of 4 November 2011), para. 45. 22 Case of Şaman v. Turkey, App No 35292/05 (Judgment of 5 April 2011), paragraph 31. 23 Paragraphs. 31 and 35. 18 16