Guidebook Suspects and accused persons must also be provided with a written translation of the documents that are essential to exercise the right to defence. Essential documents must include at a very minimum any decisions depriving a person of his/her liberty, any charges or indictments, and any judgements. In addition, to ensure the fairness of the proceedings further relevant documents or at least the relevant passages need to be translated. Hence, depending on the circumstances of the case, Member States should translate also other relevant documents. Suspects and accused persons can request the translation of other documents and can challenge the decision finding that there is no need for the translation of specific documents.144 Essential documents do not cover the translation of an appeal in to the language of the proceedings that was written by a suspect or accused person in his or her mother tongue. However, the right to interpretation covers free assistance of an interpreter if the suspect orally lodges an appeal at the registry. Interpretation services are also provided for the communication between the suspect and the lawyer to lodge an appeal.145 In comparison, ECHR standards states that146: ‘[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.147 In another judgement, however, the ECtHR recognised that not translating specific documents might cause considerable disadvantages for the suspect or accused person and a written translation might be preferable.148 Under the Directive, as an exception, an oral translation or oral summary of the essential documents may be provided, if a timely translation is not possible, and the fairness of the proceeding is ensured. The authorities have to record when an oral translation or oral summary of essential documents has been provided in the presence of an investigative or judicial authority.149 38 STANDARDS Can the right to interpretation and translation be waived? The EU Directive refers to the possibility to waive the right only in regard to translation of documents. And only if the suspected or accused person has received prior legal advice or has otherwise obtained full knowledge of the consequences of such a waiver. The waiver must be unequivocal and given voluntarily. The waiver has to be recorded.150 The condition under which a waiver can be invoked reflects the case law of the ECtHR.151 In contrast, under the ECHR also the right to interpretation can be waived as ‘neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 ECHR prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial. However, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, a waiver of the right to take part in the trial must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance.’152 How is the need for an interpreter or translator assessed and the quality of the service ensured? Members States should ensure that there are procedures or mechanisms in place that assess whether the suspect or accused person speaks the language of the criminal proceedings and whether there is the need for an interpreter. Neither the CoE nor the EU standards provide explicit guidance on which authority should be tasked with the assessment of the need for interpretation and translation. In the Recital the Directive states that the regulation implies that the competent authorities verify in an appropriate manner if the suspect or accused person speaks and understand it the language of the criminal proceeding. No further guidance is given in this regard.153 The decision that an interpreter or translator is not needed can be challenged by the suspect or accused person.154 If the suspected or accused persons are in a potentially vulnerable position, in particular because of any physical disabilities which affect their ability to communicate effectively, the law enforcement, the prosecution 39