The arrested person has a number of rights, such as the right to remain silent or to have the assistance of a lawyer. The decision to invoke or renounce these rights can be taken only if the person entitled to those rights understands clearly the facts which are held against him in order to assess the potential consequences of the proceedings and consider the wisdom of renouncing those rights.26 Whilst the ECtHR is here aiming more at the situation where interpretation is not provided for someone with only a limited understanding of the forum language (as in the case in question), it applies equally when interpretation is of poor quality, as this may similarly give rise to misunderstandings. Most relevant, though, is the approach of the ECtHR to adequacy of interpretation actually provided. The key statement is the following, found in all the relevant cases: ‘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’. 27 The ECtHR thus links adequacy of interpretation to the exercise of other rights, in particular that of being informed of the case against one (Article 6(3)(a)) and being able to defend oneself (Article 6(3)(b)). The case-law further establishes that the authorities are required to respond to possible signs that this standard is not being met: ‘In view of the need for the right guaranteed by [Article 6(3)(e)] to be practical and effective, the obligation of the competent authorities is not limited to the appointment of an interpreter but, if they are put on notice in the particular circumstances, may also extend to a degree of subsequent control over the adequacy of the interpretation provided’ (paragraph 74).28 Examples of what constitutes exercising ‘control’ when ‘put on notice’ is the subject of precious little case-law, but there are two examples:   Violation of Article 6(3)(e) due to the failure to ensure adequate interpretation when it was known the defendant in a sentencing hearing had difficulty communicating, the court instead relying on the ‘untested language skills’ of a family member who happened to be in court;29 No violation of Article 6(3)(e) in respect of an interview conducted in French by a Swedish customs officer, in that the officer had taken careful measures to check communication was effective and the courts had, subsequently, assured itself that it was safe to rely upon the evidence based on those checks.30 The difficulty with these decisions is that the ECtHR is, in most of them, reaching its own determination as to whether there has been a violation of Article 6(3)(e) or not. The findings are 26 Case of Baytar v. Turkey App. no 45440/04 (Judgment of 14 October 2014), para. 53 (free translation). Kamasinski v. Austria App. no 9783/82 (Judgment of 19 December 1989) paragraph 74. 28 Ibid 29 Cuscani v. United Kingdom App. no 32771/96 (Judgment of 24 December 2002). 30 Diallo v. Sweden, cited above note 1212. 27 21