D. USING THE DIRECTIVE IN PRACTICE Tackling the problem should begin with a preventive approach, seeking to rely upon the Directive in order to ensure that violations do not occur in the first place. By disputing the alleged violatoin at the early stages, you will also create a record which may be used later in the proceedings. 1. Making your point at the police station (if you are there) Fair Trials suggests that, bearing in mind the above, you should make a number of points when actually physically at the point where the first decision is made:  Explain why interpretation is needed:  Ensure police are made aware in unequivocal manner that interpretation is needed.  Tell the authority that it is incumbent upon them to justify their decision not to provide interpretation, ask them to enumerate their reasons for concluding that the person speaks and understands the language and record the same in writing.  If the client can speak the language to some extent, discuss the case a little with them to check whether they are comfortable with the relevant terminology, taking at note of issues which cause difficulty.  In any case, however, you should not accept a decision not to provide an interpreter if it has been requested. You need to challenge this decision. 2. Challenging the decision finding that there is no need for interpretation If the initial decision at the police station is to proceed without an interpreter, you obviously need to protest if you think an interpreter is in fact needed. This would involve refusing to proceed with the questioning until the matter has been referred to a higher authority, if there is one.     Interpretation has been refused: what to do? Complain to a higher authority, if there is one. Is there a superior police officer / prosecutor to whom the issue can be taken? Set out the basis for your objection and record it / ensure that it is recorded by authorities in writing. What if there is no separate system provided for an objection to the police’s decision? This is not necessarily contrary to the Directive: bear in mind Recital 25 (‘That right does not entail the obligation for Member States to provide for a separate mechanism or complaint procedure in which such finding may be challenged’). However, in this case, there should be protection elsewhere. In this regard, it is helpful to consider the decision of the CJEU in the Samba Diouf case. An asylum application had been processed in accordance with an accelerated procedure, as permitted by the relevant directive. The decision to treat the case as an accelerated one was not, itself, subject to challenge, but the decision on the merits was. The Court found that the general principle of effective judicial protection did not require a separate challenge of the decision to accelerate, 18