30 How it should be done On the use of minority languages in the judicial field, the principles of proportionality and of a fair trial, as well as the concept of ‘equality of arms’, provide a series of language rights. A person charged with a criminal offence must be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he or she understands of the nature and cause of the accusation. Legislation must clearly spell out the right of everyone, including a member of a linguistic minority, detained or accused in criminal proceedings to be informed of the reasons for arrest or detention, and the nature and cause of any charge brought against him or her in a language that he or she understands. This is not limited to situations where individuals are not fluent in a state’s official language(s), but would be in application of the principle of proportionality in terms of the effectiveness and practicality of public service delivery, although issues of access to justice are also involved. Because of the long-standing association with the fundamental right to a fair trial, these linguistic rights must be – and often are – recognized in law. Despite being recognized and protected by legislation, these linguistic rights are not always systematically implemented because of inadequate financial resources, lack of qualified interpreters or even ignorance of this right on the part of the accused. This is a particular issue in relation to smaller linguistic minorities and can lead to serious miscarriages of justice. Positive and successful efforts by different states to ensure that these linguistic rights are fully safeguarded include: • Information pamphlets, posters or other visible means in all courtrooms and police stations in the most widely used languages in the district to inform any accused or suspect of his or her rights to free translation or interpretation; • Setting up a register of appropriately qualified translators and interpreters; • Using communications technology such as videoconferencing, telephones or the Internet, as long as this does not result in unfair proceedings; • Legally obliging the presiding judge or other court official to verify the linguistic abilities of an accused or suspect if it appears there may be comprehension issues on the basis of language; • Providing a right to challenge a decision or a finding that there is no need for translation; or, when a translation has been provided, the ability to complain that the quality of the translation is insufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. Good practices and recommendations • Among the recommended good practices for all European Union member states is the provision of information pamphlets, posters or other visible means in all courtrooms and police stations in the most widely used languages of a district to inform any accused or suspect of his or her right to free translation or interpretation, as well as the setting up of a register of translators and interpreters who are appropriately qualified;49 49 Council of the European Union, Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings.