PART III Language Use The ombudsman should have a language policy for internal and external communication. The language policy of the minority ombudsman institution should allow persons to use the ombudsman’s services in a minority language or with free services of an interpreter. This includes to approach the institution and to receive replies in a minority language. There may be broader minorities/minority language rights legislation within the state, which regulates language matters. Even where such legislation exists, for an ombudsman institution specializing on minority issues, it seems essential that the operational policy also specifies the language use of the office both internally and externally. As most of the national Acts of legislation establishing ombudsman institutions surveyed concern a general, traditional ombudsman without a particular minorities or minority language remit, there is no attention to the language use of the office through which the institution will carry out its work. There are a number of considerations, which may be regulated by the language policy. First, there may be provisions with respect to the language, which is used in preparing public documentation, signage, and so forth. The policy may provide that, in addition to the official language or languages of the state, the languages of the various minority linguistic populations of the state shall be used in all public documents produced by the institution (including annual and special reports) and in the publicity materials of the institution. Given that the institution will be handling complaints and conducting investigations on behalf of minority populations, the policy may provide a right to service from the institution in the minority language spoken by users of the institution’s services (regardless of whether the user can also speak the official language(s) of the state). The ability to use one’s minority language in dealing with the specialized minority ombudsman institution and to receive information about the institution and its services in that language would not only enhance the legitimacy of the institution, but may be essential if the institution is to carry out its duties effectively. With respect to the internal operations of the institution, it may be desirable to allow officers and employees to use their minority language in carrying out their duties. Again, this may enhance the reputation of the institution and may also facilitate the effective participation of members of minorities within the institution itself. However, the use of more than internal institutional working language raises a range of practical problems, which increase significantly with the number of languages involved. Where employees are unable to speak all such languages, translation facilities will be needed, both with respect to documents and for the purposes of conducting meetings, and this presents both logistical barriers and, potentially, significant costs. More specifically, one could consider as guiding principles the strongest reading of Article 10(2) of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, as well as Article 7(d) and the highest level of commitment spelled out in Article 10(2) and (3) of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It seems preferable that the entire communication with the office should be able to 62