applies not only to oral statements made at the trial hearing but to documentary material and the pre-trial proceedings…” However, Article 6 paragraph 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. “The interpretation assistance provided should be such as to enable the defendant to have knowledge of the case against him and to defend himself, notably by being able to put before the court his version of the events.”138 The defendant should complain if he or she cannot follow the proceedings or if he or she feels the interpretation is not adequate, although it is the judge, as “the ultimate guardian of the fairness of the proceedings,”139 who bears the burden of verifying whether the defendant needs an interpreter and assuring that interpretation is adequate. As to the “language used in court,” Article 6 paragraph 3 (e) does not grant the defendant the right to use a specific language or his or her native language. Therefore, it meets the standard if proceedings are held in a language in which the defendant is conversant or can understand and speak, or if interpretation is provided in such a language.140 Article 118 of the Constitution and Article 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code guarantee the right to become acquainted with all documents and materials of the case and to speak before the criminal investigative bodies and the court through an interpreter if the defendant does not know or speak the state language. The Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code also provide for the right to hold court proceedings or to conduct criminal proceedings in another language acceptable for the majority of the persons participating in the proceeding, provided that all procedural decisions are issued in the state language. Monitors observed three major problems relati������������������������������������������������ ve���������������������������������������������� to the right to an interpreter: (i) the lack of interpreters, especially for languages other than Russian��������������������������������� ;�������������������������������� (ii) problems with the quality of the translation���������������������������������������������������������������������������� ;��������������������������������������������������������������������������� and (iii) procedural violations regarding the translation. These problems were described in detail in the Second TMP Report and continued to occur during the second monitoring period in Chişinău. Similar problems were observed in the Southeast. This section discusses the availability of interpreters and procedural problems relat���������� ed�������� to the appointment of interpreters. The quality of interpretation is analyzed in Chapter II section 2.5.of this Final Report. In Chişinău, monitors observed that translation was required in 18% of the hearings monitored. While translation was required in 1,256 hearings, the court provided an interpreter in only 1082 hearings. The breakdown on a percentage basis among the parties requesting translators in Chişinău, was as follows: defendants and defence coun������������������������� se����������������������� l 65%������������������ ;����������������� injured parties 22%�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ;������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� witnesses 11%����������������������������������������������������������������������� ;���������������������������������������������������������������������� prosecutors 1% and other parties 1%. In the Southeast interpretation was needed in 51 hearings out of a total of 365 (14%), and the percentage breakdown among the requesting parties was as follows: defendants and defence council 89%, injured parties 4% and witnesses 7%. These figures indicate that there was a substantial need for interpretation in all courts monitored. The lack of translators and interpreters is an acknowledged and widespread problem throughout the country. Not only monitors noted the problem. Many judges also expressed 138 ���� See Kamasinski v.Austria, Judgment of the European Court, 19 December 1989, para. 74. 139 ���� See Cuscani v. United Kingdom, Judgment of the European Court, 24 December 2002, para. 38-39. 140 ��������������������������� Trechsel, Op, cit. p. 330. 69