III – THE ‘THIRD LANGUAGE’ ISSUE A. THE ISSUE In this section, we propose to review briefly the issue surrounding the provision of interpretation in a language other than the suspect’s own native language (a ‘third language’). By way of example, practitioners report that Kazakhs are provided with Russian interpretation, for instance. This causes all the same problems as poor interpretation: possible misunderstandings, which may prejudice trial fairness. B. THE ECHR BASELINE This issue has not been considered in detail by the ECtHR to date. In the pending case Vizgirda v. Slovenia,33 a Lithuanian national was provided with interpretation in Russian, not his mother tongue. Fair Trials has intervened34 in the case to make the following points:    The position of the suspect or accused person who receives interpretation in a language other than his native tongue is comparable to the position of the suspect who speaks the forum language to a low level as a second language. Thus, all the factors ordinarily relevant to determining whether someone needs interpretation are relevant for the purpose of determining whether interpretation in a third language is an adequate solution: does the person have the necessary linguistic ability in that language, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, for this to represent a solution? The provision of interpretation in a third language should automatically ‘put the authorities on notice’, triggering their obligation to ‘exercise subsequent control’. This will involve taking action to verify the quality of the interpretation, or retroactive action to check the reliability of any statements obtained early in the proceedings. C. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE Only one provision of the Directive, Recital 22, provides any mention of the point: ‘Interpretation and translation under this Directive should be provided in the native language of the suspected or accused persons or in any other language that they speak or understand in order to allow them fully to exercise their right of defence, and in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.’ D. USING THE DIRECTIVE IN PRACTICE We encourage you to treat the provision of interpretation in a third language as the same thing as not providing interpretation at all to someone who does not speak the forum language as their first 33 34 Vizgirda v. Slovenia, App. no 59868/08, communicated 16 June 2014. Read the intervention here. 34