Nothing is provided in this provision regarding the nature of the authority to whom such a complaint can be made, on what grounds, and so on. We will make our own suggestions below. However, there is some more detail in Recitals 24 and 26: ‘(24) Member States should ensure that control can be exercised over the adequacy of the interpretation and translation provided when the competent authorities have been put on notice in a given case’. ‘(26) When the quality of the interpretation is considered insufficient to ensure the right to a fair trial, the competent authorities should be able to replace the appointed interpreter.’ We would make some limited remarks about these provisions:  Article 2(5) provides for a ‘possibility to complain’ which is apparently distinct from the ‘right to challenge’. It is utterly unclear what is meant by this but it clearly points to a requirement for oversight of interpretation quality in the specific case.  The reference in Recital 24 to ‘exercising control when put on notice’ is a clear, if implicit, reference to the concept arising in the case-law of the ECtHR.  Recital 26 envisages a response whereby the interpreter is replaced when it is discovered that the quality is insufficient. This can arguably be seen as an example of exercising control when put on notice as envisaged by Recital 24.  However, this may not always be a sufficient response (e.g. if the issue is not discovered on time or the replacement is not provided despite being requested, and incriminating evidence has already been collected through substandard interpretation). At this point, the possibility to complain only makes sense when considered as a retroactive complaint. b. General quality control requirements The Directive also includes some general quality control requirements in Article 5: ‘1. Member States shall take concrete measures to ensure that the interpretation and translation provided meets the quality required under Article 2(8) and Article 3(9). 2. In order to promote the adequacy of interpretation and translation and efficient access thereto, Member States shall endeavour to establish a register or registers of independent translators and interpreters who are appropriately qualified. Once established, such register or registers shall, where appropriate, be made available to legal counsel and relevant authorities. 3. Member States shall ensure that interpreters and translators be required to observe confidentiality regarding interpretation and translation provided under this Directive.’ Our observations on these provisions are these:  These appear to be ‘systemic’ type obligations (i.e. not ones intended to confer rights upon the individual but requiring the Member States to take systemic measures).  The requirement in Article 5(2) for Member States to ‘endeavour’ to establish registers of appropriately qualified interpreters is not accompanied by any requirement to use such interpreters in criminal proceedings. It does, however, suggest that professional status is 23