C. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE The assessment of interpretation needs is linked to the scope ratione personae of the Directive, i.e. those persons who are entitled to the interpretation required by the Directive. Article 2(1), establishing the right to interpretation in criminal proceedings, provides: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that suspected or accused persons who do not speak or understand the language of the criminal proceedings concerned are provided, without delay, with interpretation during criminal proceedings before investigative and judicial authorities, including during police questioning, all court hearings and any necessary interim hearings’ (emphasis added). The Directive continues, in Article 2(4) and (5): ‘4. Member States shall ensure that a procedure or mechanism is in place to ascertain whether suspected or accused persons speak and understand the language of the criminal proceedings and whether they need the assistance of an interpreter.’ 5. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with procedures in national law, suspected or accused persons have the right to challenge a decision finding that there is no need for interpretation (…)’ The recitals also provide some more guidance: ‘(21) (…) Such procedure or mechanism implies that competent authorities verify in any appropriate manner, including by consulting the suspected or accused persons concerned, whether they speak and understand the language of the criminal proceedings and whether they need the assistance of an interpreter.’ We will discuss these provisions more fully below when considering how to rely upon them. However, we clarify at this point what we think are some basic assumptions:  The Directive confers a right to interpretation upon people who do not speak or understand the language of the criminal proceedings. The question whether someone meets this definition must, necessarily, depend upon objective factors which will vary from case to case.  This is confirmed by the presence of an obligation in Article 2(4) to have a mechanism in place for identifying such persons, the reference in Recital 21 to the consultation of suspected or accused persons, which must necessarily be done on a case-by-case basis, and the existence of a right of challenge under Article 2(5) which implies an individual decision.  However, there is no guidance provided as to what, substantively, should govern the assessment required. In so far as this whole Directive aims to facilitate the application of rights derived from the ECHR, and as protected by the Charter, the factors identified by the ECtHR as detailed above are undoubtedly relevant. However, it will be for the CJEU to provide further guidance. 17