The starting point is that Article 6(3)(e), which refers to the assistance of an ‘interpreter’, has been interpreted as covering written translations but only to a limited extent. The ECtHR states: ‘[Article 6(3)(e)] states that every defendant has the right to the free assistance of an interpreter. That right applies not only to oral statements made at the trial hearing but also to documentary material and the pre-trial proceedings. This means that an accused who cannot understand or speak the language used in court has the right to the free assistance of an interpreter for the translation or interpretation of all those documents or statements in the proceedings instituted against him which it is necessary for him to understand or to have rendered into the court’s language in order to have the benefit of a fair trial (…) However, [Article 6(3)(e)] does not go so far as to require a written translation of all items of written evidence or official documents in the procedure. In that connection, it should be noted that the text of the relevant provisions refers to an “interpreter”, not a “translator”. This suggests that oral linguistic assistance may satisfy the requirements of the Convention’39 The ECtHR has, however, recognised that a written translation is preferable: ‘[a] defendant not conversant with the court’s language may in fact be put at a disadvantage if he is not also provided with a written translation of the indictment in a language he understands’40 Beyond this, though, there is little to be gained from the ECtHR case-law on this topic. The provisions of the Directive are more prescriptive and provide a stronger basis for obtaining written translations. C. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE 1. The right to translation of essential documents a. The general right The right to translation of essential documents is provided at Article 3(1), which provides: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that suspected or accused persons who do not understand the language of the criminal proceedings are, within a reasonable period of time, provided with a written translation of 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 (emphasis added).’ We would make the following two points about this general provision:  This provision creates the general rule in favour of written translation. It was remarked at a conference organised by EULITA that the term ‘traduction’ in French already means a written translation, and the Directive has still specified a ‘traduction écrite’, apparently in a deliberate effort at superabundance. This emphasis on written documents is itself stronger than the tentative suggestion that written translations may be required in the ECtHR case-law. 39 40 Case of Hermi v. Italy, App. no. 18114/02 (Judgment of 18 October 2006), para. 70. Kamasinski v. Austria, cited above note 27, para. 70 37