language. Accordingly, everything said in the context of Parts I and II above applies, mutatis mutandis, to the provision of language assistance in a third language. 1. Challenging a decision to provide third -language interpretation  Refer to Fair Trials’ intervention in Vizgirda v. Slovenia and Part I above.  Try to figure out (even by using a mobile device) whether the languages are similar and to what extent, e.g. do they even share the same alphabet?  Explain, at the point when the assessment is being made and the decision taken:  The native language of the suspect is not the proposed language of interpretation and an assessment should be made of the extent to which the suspect is able to understand questions and answer them in the proposed third language, by reference to the specific facts of the case. Explain that, in line with the Brozicek v. Italy35 ECtHR judgment, it is incumbent on the authorities to establish that he speaks it sufficiently to be able to use this third language.  The use of this third language will force the suspect to communicate in an imperfect means and this will prejudice his ability to express himself clearly on the key issues. Ensure this objection is noted in the record / take your own note. 2. Challenging inadequate interpretation a. At the initial questioning  Refer to Part II above. All the same considerations are relevant.  In addition, ask your client, through the interpreter, to let you know if he has any difficulty communicating with the interpreter due to the use of the third language. A professional interpreter should have no problem with this. Take a note.  Take a note of any key words which appear during the interview, and use Google translate later on to compare these in the different languages, in case you are able to identify any specific differences. b. Before the court  Refer to Fair Trials’ intervention in Vizgirda v. Slovenia and Part II above.  Argue: Recital 22 of the Directive reflects the common sense assumption that interpretation should be provided in the suspect or accused person’s native tongue. If this is not done, the authorities must be careful to control quality. The failure to do this has caused prejudice (referring to examples of specific things that appear to go wrong in the questioning due to the use of the third language, relying on any notes you have taken). The court must therefore take particular care when considering this evidence and, in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, should decline to rely upon it unless it can be demonstrated (e.g. through analysis of tape recordings) that the interpretation fully enabled the suspect to defend himself. 35 Brozicek v. Italy, cited above note 15. 35