Vignette: Both defendants were represented by a defence lawyer who was not present at the hearing. The defendants told the court that they had given up on the existing lawyer and they both agreed to be defended by a legal aid lawyer. The judge replied then, ”Yes, do you think that the legal aid lawyers are hanging on the fence and you take them and bring to trials? I give you time till Friday to come and tell me what’s the matter with your lawyer.” Note: this case took place in November 2008, namely after the entry into force of the Law on State Guaranteed Legal Aid. Monitoring indicated instances in which access to case materials was not fully provided to the defence. Such violations generally occurred at pre-trial proceedings and thus fell outside the scope of the Programme. Monitors noticed a case in which the lawyer asked that her complaint be noted in the minutes of the hearing, but her request was refused by the judge. By refusing to note a complaint or a request of the defence in the minutes, the judge breaches the rule that minutes must be accurate. Such a refusal deprives the defendant of the opportunity to raise the argument on appeal. M�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� any of the problems relating to the right to effective legal defence that were indicated in the Second TMP Report continued to occur in Chişinău and the Southeast during the second monitoring period. ������������������������������������������������������������������� Other problems noted in the second ��������������������������������������� monitoring period, particularly in the Southeast����������������������������������������������������������������������������� : defence ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� lawyers did not have their ID, which is required to register trial participants in the minutes�������������������������������������������������������������� ;������������������������������������������������������������� lawyers did not speak the state language though required by the Law on the ��������� Bar. ����� 3.7. The Right to an Interpreter Article 6 paragraph 3 (e) of the European Convention states, “[in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled] to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.” The European Court has detailed this right in its case law, stating that, “Article 6, read as a whole, guarantees the right of the accused to participate effectively in a criminal trial. In general this includes, inter alia, not only his right to be present, but to hear and follow the proceedings.”135 This means the defendant should not be impeded by any hearing or language-related problems from participating in the trial. The article guarantees the right to free interpretation, defined as: “…for anyone who cannot speak or understand the language used in court, the right to receive the free assistance of an interpreter, without subsequently having claimed back from him payment of the costs thereby incurred.”136 In addition, “[a]n 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 are necessary for him to understand in order to have the benefit of a fair trial.”137 Thus, the European Court has established that “[t]he right to free assistance of an interpreter 135 ���� See Standford v. United Kingdom, Judgment of the European Court, 23 February 1994, para. 26. 136 ���� See Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany, Judgment of the European Court, 28 November 1978, para. 40 and 46. 137 ��������������� Ibid. para. 48. 68