When looking out for issues relating to the quality of interpretation, it is worth bearing in mind the standard established by Article 2(8) of the Directive (‘ensuring that suspected or accused persons have knowledge of the case against them and are able to exercise their right of defence’). The key questions would therefore appear to be whether the person is able to understand what they are being accused of and able to exercise their right of defence. In the context of pre-trial questioning at the police station, assuming no decision is taken to remain silent, the key consideration in terms of exercising rights of defence is understanding what is being asked and the ability to explain oneself. Indeed, as noted earlier, the ECtHR standard refers to the suspect being able to ‘put their version of events’. Thus:     iv. Keep these questions in mind: Is the suspect able to understand precisely what is being asked of him? Is the suspect able to give his version of events accurately? Is a risk of unfairness arising because of the interpretation? What to look for – specific issues The extent to which this standard is met will depend on a number of concrete, practical aspects of the interpretation provided on the day. The following headings cover some key areas most likely to give rise to interpretation issues.  Control questions It is good practice for the questioner to ask, through the interpreter, a series of questions at the beginning of the interview to determine whether the person is able to understand what is said.  Take a note of the control questions and the responses given.  If control questions are not asked, suggest that they be asked.  Incriminating statements The function of interpretation is to convert into the target language the statements made by the suspect. If this is not done correctly, an exculpatory statement might be misunderstood and be recorded as an incriminating statement. For instance, if a suspect says he ‘panicked’ and hit someone, and this is interpreted as him saying he ‘lost his temper’ and hit someone, this would be inaccurate. The former statement is essentially exculpatory, suggesting self-defence, the latter essentially incriminatory, suggesting violent reaction. Or, if the suspect states that a friend gave him money so that he could by drugs for both of them, this might be wrongly interpreted as his having bought a total amount with the intention of selling half to a friend. The former statement would imply simple possession of drugs, whilst the latter could be understood as suggesting an intention to supply, a more serious offence.  Clarify potentially ambiguous or incriminating statements.  Did the interpreter use a literal translation or an expression?  What were the exact words translated? 27