Condensed: International human rights law recognises the absolute right that in criminal proceedings, state authorities should provide a free and competentinterpreter where theaccused person does notunderstand the language used during pre-trial investigations and in court.
This right applies to all stages of oral proceedings in court as well as during the investigative stages of the case. It applies also to the translation of the main documents such as charge sheets, which will be used in the criminal proceedings. The right does not extend to persons who understand the court language but simply would like to use the language they ordinarily express themselves in.
Comprehensive: Article 14(3)(f) of the ICCPR provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to ‘free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court’. The right to free interpretation is also provided for in other international and regional human rights instruments.[1] The right to free interpretation extends beyond the wording of article 14(3)(f) of the ICCPR and covers not only hearings before a court but also interviews during pre-trial investigation. In Singarasa v Sri Lanka, the HRC held that use of confession obtained without a translator was a breach of the right to a fair hearing under article 14(1) ICCPR.[2]
The right to free assistance of an interpreter applies also to the translation of documentation such as charge sheets, which will be used in the criminal proceedings. Only the main documents need to be translated.[3] These should include ‘all those documents or statements in the proceedings instituted against him which it is necessary for him to understand in order to have the benefit of a fair trial.’[4] Oral translation of documentation, including the judgment, suffices as long as the accused is able to follow proceedings and to decide whether or not to appeal.[5] In Harward v Norway, the HRC held that an accused person did not have the ‘right to be furnished with translations of all relevant documents in a criminal investigation, provided that the relevant documents are made available to his counsel’. [6]
The interpreter or translator ought to be competent by demonstrating a level of understanding of the languages under interpretation in such a way as to enable the accused person to follow the proceedings as accurately as possible. In Griffin v Spain, the HRC alluded to the competence of the interpreter.[7] However, it was held that a violation of article 14(3)(f) can only arise if the author complains of such incompetence to the judge during trial.
The right to interpretation ‘applies to aliens as well as to nationals’.[8] However, the right does not extend to persons who understand the court language but simply would prefer to use the language they ordinarily express themselves in. In Guesdon v France, the HRC found no violation of article 14(3)(f) where the accused and his defence witnesses, who were Bretons, had their request for an interpreter refused after they chose not to use French during court proceedings, as they were able to understand the French language.[9]
The interpretation provided should be free and thus a person cannot be required to pay for interpretation or translation upon being convicted.[10]
[1] CRC art 40(2)(vi); ACHR art 8(2)(a); ECHR art 6(3)(e); Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa art A(2)(g), N4. See also ICTR Statute art 20(4)(f); ICTR Statute art 21(4)(f).
[2] Communication 1033/2001 (HRC 2004). See also Kamasinski v Austria application 9783/82 (ECtHR 1989) para 74; Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa para N(4)(c).
[3] Harward v Norway communication 1451/1991 (HRC 1994) para 9.4, 9.5.
[4] Luedicke, Belkacem and Koçv Germany application 6210/73; 6877/75; 7132/75 (ECtHR 1978) para 48.
[5] Haward v Norway communication 451/1991 (HRC 1994) para. 9.5.
International human rights law recognises the absolute right that in criminal proceedings, state authorities should provide a free and competent interpreter where the accused person does not understand the language used during pre-trial investigations and in court.
This right applies to all stages of oral proceedings in court as well as during the investigative stages of the case. It applies also to the translation of the main documents such as charge sheets, which will be used in the criminal proceedings. The right does not extend to persons who understand the court language but simply would like to use the language they ordinarily express themselves in.
Comprehensive:
Article 14(3)(f) of the ICCPR provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to ‘free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court’. The right to free interpretation is also provided for in other international and regional human rights instruments.[1] The right to free interpretation extends beyond the wording of article 14(3)(f) of the ICCPR and covers not only hearings before a court but also interviews during pre-trial investigation. In Singarasa v Sri Lanka, the HRC held that use of confession obtained without a translator was a breach of the right to a fair hearing under article 14(1) ICCPR.[2]
The right to free assistance of an interpreter applies also to the translation of documentation such as charge sheets, which will be used in the criminal proceedings. Only the main documents need to be translated.[3] These should include ‘all those documents or statements in the proceedings instituted against him which it is necessary for him to understand in order to have the benefit of a fair trial.’[4] Oral translation of documentation, including the judgment, suffices as long as the accused is able to follow proceedings and to decide whether or not to appeal.[5] In Harward v Norway, the HRC held that an accused person did not have the ‘right to be furnished with translations of all relevant documents in a criminal investigation, provided that the relevant documents are made available to his counsel’. [6]
The interpreter or translator ought to be competent by demonstrating a level of understanding of the languages under interpretation in such a way as to enable the accused person to follow the proceedings as accurately as possible. In Griffin v Spain, the HRC alluded to the competence of the interpreter.[7] However, it was held that a violation of article 14(3)(f) can only arise if the author complains of such incompetence to the judge during trial.
The right to interpretation ‘applies to aliens as well as to nationals’.[8] However, the right does not extend to persons who understand the court language but simply would prefer to use the language they ordinarily express themselves in. In Guesdon v France, the HRC found no violation of article 14(3)(f) where the accused and his defence witnesses, who were Bretons, had their request for an interpreter refused after they chose not to use French during court proceedings, as they were able to understand the French language.[9]
The interpretation provided should be free and thus a person cannot be required to pay for interpretation or translation upon being convicted.[10]
[1] CRC art 40(2)(vi); ACHR art 8(2)(a); ECHR art 6(3)(e); Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa art A(2)(g), N4. See also ICTR Statute art 20(4)(f); ICTR Statute art 21(4)(f).
[2] Communication 1033/2001 (HRC 2004). See also Kamasinski v Austria application 9783/82 (ECtHR 1989) para 74; Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa para N(4)(c).
[3] Harward v Norway communication 1451/1991 (HRC 1994) para 9.4, 9.5.
[4] Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v Germany application 6210/73; 6877/75; 7132/75 (ECtHR 1978) para 48.
[5] Haward v Norway communication 451/1991 (HRC 1994) para. 9.5.
[6] Harward v Norway para 9.5.
[7] Griffin v Spain communication 492/1992 (HRC 1995) para 9.5.
[8] Cf HRC General Comment 32 para 40.
[9] Guesdon v France communication 219/1986 (HRC 1990) para 10.3.
[10] Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v Germany para 49.