When multilingual statements or interpreter involvement are part of the record, the report should provide a clear, auditable account of how language issues were handled. The best approach is to note the language used, confirm the interpreter’s presence, assess and document the accuracy of translations, include translated quotes if necessary, and document translation quality. This combination ensures the record reflects exactly how communication occurred and how meaning was conveyed. Noting the language used establishes the linguistic context and helps identify potential limitations in understanding. Recording interpreter presence verifies who facilitated communication and allows assessment of qualifications or credentials, which matters for reliability and admissibility in proceedings. Documenting translation accuracy captures whether the conveyed statements remained faithful to the original meaning, noting any challenges such as idiomatic expressions or cultural nuances that could alter interpretation. Including translated quotes when necessary ensures accessibility for readers who do not speak the original language while clearly indicating what was translated. Finally, documenting translation quality creates an evidence trail about the methods used to translate and verify accuracy—such as notes from the interpreter, any back-translation practices, or concerns about dialect differences—supporting the integrity of the account. These practices protect the integrity of the statements, guard against misinterpretation, and provide a transparent trail for supervisors, prosecutors, and courts. Ignoring language differences, paraphrasing quotes, or translating everything by default without noting context and quality would undermine accuracy and credibility in the record.