iii. Other essential documents For documents which are not covered by Article 3(2) of the Directive, you need to establish that they are ‘essential’. The full definition is provided by Article 3(1): ‘(...) documents which are essential to ensure that they are able to exercise their right of defence and to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings’ As mentioned above there is no particular emphasis on written documents in the ECtHR case-law so we do not, in this section, propose any arguments based on any specific cases. We suggest you focus your analysis on the practical point of whether the absence of the translation prevents your client from exercising rights of defence effectively, based on the nature and value of the document.  Transcripts / records from police questioning Arguably one of the key documents of which the client needs a translation is the transcript or record of what he said during police questioning. This information will be used, and may be of central importance, at both the pre-trial and the trial stage. You as the lawyer do not know whether it contains inaccuracies vis-à-vis what was actually said, and it may have only been summarised by an interpreter at the time.  Argue: The suspect needs a translation of the record of what he said in interview, particularly if it is alleged that he made incriminatory statements or that his statements are contradicted by what other witnesses say.  Key supporting evidence Equally, the suspect or accused needs to be able to read translations of key evidence used to support certain of the documents which must be translated under Article 3(2). For instance, if a pretrial detention decision is based largely on one or two witness statements, the suspect’s ability to challenge detention may depend on their ability to read these supporting documents. Equally, key evidence on which an indictment is based may have to be translated in order for the person to comment on it effectively.  Argue: In order effectively to exercise defence rights, the suspect needs access to key supporting evidence on which the documents listed in Article 3(2) of the Directive are based. This might cover witness statements and/or expertises on which reliance is placed in a detention decision or indictment. 3. Challenging adverse decisions If the decision is refused, you need to challenge it, as foreseen by Article 3(5) of the Directive. As noted above, there is nothing specified as to what sort of authority this challenge should be brought. Different issues may arise according to the way the system is organised in your country. Before looking at each possibility it is worth recalling the principle of ‘effective judicial protection’ expressed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which provides that: 42