Of course, if it is found that there is a violation of the quality requirement, then the court must do everything within its jurisdiction to put matters right (disregarding the evidence, attaching less or no weight to it, or declaring the whole questioning invalid for failure to comply with the Directive). c. Framing arguments i. Use your notes from the police station If you convince the court that an obligation exists for it to have regard to failures earlier in the proceedings when considering evidence obtained through an interpreter during police questioning, all of the evidence you obtained at the police station (records etc.) will become relevant.  Supply the evidence / notes you have collected at the police station, explaining how this shows a failure to meet the Directive’s quality requirement. This will be particularly helpful if, as seems possible, the Member State has failed to put in place a system for verifying whether interpretation in a specific case is of a satisfactory standard. ii. Rely on the failure to take ‘concrete measures’ We saw earlier that Article 5(1) requires the Member States to take ‘concrete measures’ in order to ensure adequate interpretation. This appears to leave Member States broad discretion as to what to do. However, it does require them to do something. It is worth recalling that the quality requirement in Article 2(8) is that the interpretation should be ‘of sufficient quality to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings’. Clearly, ‘the proceedings’ can only refer to a given case in which interpretation is provided. So even if general measures are taken (e.g. establishing entry requirements for the profession of interpreter), there should also be something in place to ensure quality in specific cases (this might include, in particular, audio-visual recording of interviews). You can rely upon the failure to take such measures. This should have particular force if, as explained above, your argument is supported by material showing that things really went wrong with interpretation at the police station.  Argue: where an issue is raised as to interpretation, regard should be had to the extent to which the Member State has taken ‘concrete measures’ to ensure that interpretation meets the required standard. The failure to have in place a system capable of ensuring adequacy of interpretation in the specific proceedings in question means there is no guarantee of the adequacy of the interpretation. The court should take this into account when reaching its decision. iii. Different standards at police stations and court The Directive, as has been stated above, provides a single right to adequate interpretation which applies throughout the criminal proceedings from police questioning to final appeals. In some countries, pre-trial institutions and courts all use the same services but, based on our information, some countries have different systems for police and courts. It is usually reported that the police station system is much more informal and with fewer guarantees of quality. If this is the case in your country, you can try to draw attention to the distinction. 32