 We take the view that the Directive governs only the translation of documents to which the defence has ‘access’ in the original language in the first place. In relation to gaining access to the document in the first place, see our Toolkit on Directive 2012/13/EU. b. Documents which are always essential / other documents Article 3 continues by prescribing some documents which are always considered essential, with an obligation on authorities to identify whether other documents are essential: 2. Essential documents shall include any decision depriving a person of his liberty, any charge or indictment, any judgment. 3. The competent authorities shall, in a given case, decide whether any other document is essential. Suspected or accused persons may submit a reasoned request to that effect. We would make the following observations about these provisions:  The reference to ‘a given case’ in Article 3(3) confirms that the question whether a document is essential depends upon the specifics of the case. It is not possible to establish whether a given piece of evidence (e.g. a witness statement) is always non-essential.  The definition of an essential document for the purposes of arguing that a particular document should be translated in a specific case is found in Article 3(1), which states that ‘all documents which are essential to ensure that they are able to exercise their right of defence and to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings’. 2. Partial translation Article 3(4) of the Directive provides: ‘4. There shall be no requirement to translate passages of essential documents which are not relevant for the purposes of enabling suspected or accused persons to have knowledge of the case against them.’ These are our thoughts on this provision:  Certain parts of a translation may be omitted if they are not ‘relevant’. The reference to ‘the case against’ the suspected or accused person suggests that the provision may have in mind the translation of incriminatory parts of a document.  However, other parts of a document may be relevant to safeguarding the fairness of the proceedings. Other parts of a witness statement may, for instance, reveal falsehoods which the suspect could identify if he were in possession of a translation. The lawyer can take responsibility for reviewing other parts of the document but may also not know, without assistance from the client, if certain other passages are relevant.  Accordingly, though this is not expressed as an ‘exception’, we would suggest that the application of this provision should be approached on a precautionary basis, as it is limiting the suspect’s ability to familiarise himself with a document which has been found to be essential to his exercise of the rights of defence. 38