Obligation to inform a person of the nature and cause of the accusation, and the free-of-charge assistance of an interpreter (Article 6, paragraph 3(a) and (e) of the ECHR)

Under Article 6, paragraph 3(a) of the ECHR, an accused person has the right to be informed promptly and in detail, in a language he/she understands, of the nature and the reasons for the charges filed against him/her. The purpose of this provision is for the accused to be provided with all information necessary to prepare his/her defence, and not to be taken by surprise by the conduct of the prosecution; therefore, this obligation is more comprehensive than the one stated in Article 5, paragraph 2 of the ECHR.¹³⁸⁹ The differing scope of the obligations to give information, under Article 5, paragraph 2 and Article 6, paragraph 3(a) and (b) of the ECHR, may be relevant if the accused, who is already in pre-trial detention, prior to the issuance of an indictment against him/her, has requested to inspect documentation. This does not apply at a later stage though, after the indictment is issued.¹³⁹⁰

It is considered that an individual has been accused for a certain criminal act as soon as significant steps and actions have been taken against him/her.¹³⁹¹ In so doing, it is necessary to provide him/her with information as to the type of indictment, that is to say about the criminal act he/she has been charged with, as well as about the reasons for issuing the indictment, that is about the facts on which a reasonable suspicion is based.¹³⁹² Also, it is necessary to provide reasoning as to the legal nature of complaints incriminating the individual.¹³⁹³

When it comes to the assessment and interpretation of the term “promptness”, the moment of arrest is not considered relevant, as is the case with Article 5, paragraph 2 of the ECHR, but the moment of bringing the first indictment against the respective person.¹³⁹⁴ For that reason, the arrested person does not have to be promptly informed, i.e., in the very arrest warrant, of the charges against him/her, but within the shortest time possible.¹³⁹⁵ The ECHR protects the accused person also from unannounced and unexpected substantial amendments to the indictment, as in such cases where the accused is not in a position to defend himself/herself in an appropriate manner against such objections; this shall also apply when the court, based on the domestic positive procedural regulations, is not bound by the indictment, i.e., by its legal definition.¹³⁹⁶

When it comes to language, the BiH Constitutional Court takes as a starting point the equality of all three official languages (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian). If the case concerns a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whereby one or more of the official languages in BiH are being used, the suspect, i.e., the accused, in principle, shall not be entitled to a court interpreter. Namely, the BiH Constitutional Court assumes that all three domestic languages are easily understood.¹³⁹⁷ If other languages are concerned, the court, as a rule, uses its interpreters, as this protects the already proven quality of translations, the independence and impartiality of the court.¹³⁹⁸ However, if the court uses an interpreter “from outside”, for instance, an International Police Task Force UN (IPTF) translator, for the translation of a witness statement in a previous proceeding,¹³⁹⁹ or a an interpreter engaged by the accused for the interpretation during the main trial,¹⁴⁰⁰ the rights of the suspect, i.e., of the accused may be violated only if proven that the interpreter, i.e., translator has translated wrongly, or if there are grounds for his/her impartiality to be brought into question. As already said, the burden of proving lies on the suspect, i.e., on the accused.¹⁴⁰¹