B. BEFORE THE DIRECTIVE: REVIEW OF ECHR PRINCIPLES The Directive is based upon an area of ECtHR case-law which is not very voluminous, but from which some key principles nevertheless emerge. The case-law on the right to interpretation (and, to some extent, translation) generally arises under Article 6(3)(a) and (e), which provides: ‘Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; ... (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.’ Interpreting these provisions, the ECtHR has developed the following ‘core statement’, recently reiterated in Hacioglu v. Romania:10 ‘88. The Court reiterates that paragraph 3 (e) of Article 6 states that every defendant has the right to the free assistance of an interpreter. That right applies not only to oral statements made at the trial hearing but also to documentary material and the pretrial proceedings. This means that an accused who cannot understand or speak the language used in court has the right to the free assistance of an interpreter for the translation or interpretation of all those documents or statements in the proceedings instituted against him which it is necessary for him to understand or to have rendered into the court's language in order to have the benefit of a fair trial [...] The said provision 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 [...] The fact remains, however, that 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 [...] In view of the need for that right 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.’11 One significant addition to this case-law came in 2010, when in the case of Diallo v. Sweden12 the Third Section of the ECtHR drew a parallel between the right of access to a lawyer at the police station and the right of access to an interpreter for those who do not speak the language of the criminal proceedings, stating: 10 Case of Hacioglu v. Romania, App. no. 2573/03 (Judgment of 11 January 2011). Paragraph 88. 12 Case of Diallo v. Sweden, App. no. 13205/07 (Judgment of 5 January 2010). 11 8