Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. The Right to an Interpreter

verfasst von : John Henry Dingfelder Stone

Erschienen in: Court Interpreters and Fair Trials

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This Chapter focuses on the right to an interpreter under international law, since this allows for an introduction into the overall topic of interpreters in criminal proceedings. The Chapter sets out the circumstances that give rise to a right to have an interpreter appointed. This is shown to be problematic, since monolingual courtroom personnel are tasked with both evaluating the language competence of a foreign language participant and also assessing the professional competence of any potential court interpreters. Following upon this discussion, the difficulty of assessing competence generally is also examined, revealing that it is the adequacy of the eventual interpretation itself that is required by the right to an interpreter rather than the general competence of the interpreter herself. The Chapter further analyses the basic difficulty in assessing and enforcing competency standards at both the trial court and appellate level. A final conclusion reached is that the legal norms surrounding the right to an interpreter are still somewhat undeveloped. Given that the main purpose of an interpreter is to enable the fulfilment of the other Article 14 fair trial rights in proceedings involving foreign language participants, in order to understand the requirements of the right to an interpreter, it is necessary to understand what the other fair trial rights require of such an interpreter.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Introduction
Nächstes Kapitel Courtroom Interpreting
Fußnoten
1
The equality of arms, while not specifically guaranteed in the ICCPR, has been recognized by the HRC as a part of the ICCPR fair trial framework (Guesdon v. France [HRC 1990] §10.2; Barzhig v. France [HRC 1991] §5.5).
 
2
“Ultimately the decision whether or not a witness should have an interpreter will be answered in the light of the fundamental proposition that the accused must have a fair trial” (R. v. Johnson [1987] [Australia] p. 440).
 
3
“Historically, the common law has not always been consistently supportive of an accused’s need for the assistance of an interpreter, even in serious criminal trials” (R. v. Tran [Supreme Court 1994] [Canada] §15).
 
4
Noting that the “language proficiency of a victim giving evidence in a rape case ... can easily give way under the pressure of cross-examination” (Laster & Taylor 1994, p. 90).
 
5
Noting that in order to be considered an “otherwise qualified” interpreter, generally membership in a professional interpreting association is necessary, or the individual must have some previous employment affiliation as an interpreter with either the United Nations, a U.S. governmental department or another similar entity (Kahaner 2008–2009, p. 228).
 
6
Setting out a set of criteria (continuity, precision, impartiality, competency and contemporaneousness) in order to determine the competence of an interpretation, but providing little as to the necessary qualifications of the interpreter herself (R. v. Tran [Supreme Court 1994] [Canada] §§56–68).
 
7
Cost alone, however, cannot and should not be an absolute barrier to the translation of necessary documents. As U.S. District Court Judge Weinstein held in the context of “due process” (the equivalent term for American fair trial standards): “If the government cannot afford to provide due process to those it prosecutes, it must forego prosecution” (United States v. Mosquera [EDNY 1993] [United States] p. 176).
 
8
Where the HRC found the author “could express himself adequately in English”, did not apply for an interpreter at his trial and refused one during his appeal, it was held that he had “failed to substantiate his claim sufficiently” (Juma v. Australia [HRC 2003] §7.3).
 
9
Where the author did not show that he had insufficient knowledge of Georgian, he failed to meet his burden (Domukovsky and others v. Georgia [HRC 1998] §18.7).
 
Literatur
Aliverti, A., & Seoighe, R. (2017). Lost in Translation? Examining the Role of Court Interpreters in Cases Involving Foreign National Defendants in England and Wales. New Criminal Law Review, 20(1), 130–156.
Benmaman, V. (1992). Legal Interpreting: An Emerging Profession. Modern Language Journal, 76, 445–454.CrossRef
Bergenfield, G. (1977–78). Trying Non-English Conversant Defendants: The Use of an Interpreter. Oregon Law Review, 57, 549–565.
Boas, G. (2010). War Crimes Prosecution in Australia and Other Common Law Countries: Some Observations. Criminal Law Forum, 21(2), 313–330.CrossRef
Boas, G., Bischoff, J. L., Reid, N. L., & Taylor, B. D., III. (2011). International Criminal Procedure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown-Blake, C. (2006). Fair Trial, Language and the Right to Interpretation. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 13, 391–412.CrossRef
Chang, W. B. C., & Araujo, M. U. (1975). Interpreters for the Defense: Due Process for the Non-English-Speaking Defendant. California Law Review, 63, 801–823.CrossRef
Court Interpreter’s Job Is No Easy Task. (2002, August 26). Japan Policy & Politics.
Craney, G. (1989–90). Language v. the Law. Barrister, 16, 20–23, 27, 42.
Davis, L. W., & Hewitt, W. E. (1994). Lessons in Administering Justice: What Judges Need to Know About the Requirements, Role, and Professional Responsibilities of the Court Interpreter. Harvard Latino Law Review, 1, 121–176.
Davis, L. W., McKell, M. N., Oldroyd, J. R., & Steed, B. C. (2004). The Changing Face of Justice: A Survey of Recent Cases Involving Courtroom Interpretation. Harvard Latino Law Review, 7, 1–25.
de Jongh, E. (2008, July/August). Linguistic Presence v. Linguistic Absence. Florida Bar Journal, 82, 20–32.
de Meester, K. (2010). Commentary: Decision on the Requests of the Defence of 3 and 4 July 2006: Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Case no. ICC-01/04-01/06). In A. Klip & G. Sluiter (Eds.), Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals: The International Criminal Court (2005–2007) (Vol. 23, pp. 470–478). Antwerp: Intersentia.
Dingfelder Stone, J. H. (2012). Assessing the Existence of the Right to Translation Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 16, 159–181.
Elias-Bursać, E. (2015). Translating Evidence and Interpreting Testimony at a War Crimes Tribunal. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Ferguson, P. W. (2002, July). Trial in Absence and Waiver of Human Rights. Criminal Law Review, 554–565.
González, R., Vásquez, V. F., & Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of Court Interpretation: Theory, Policy, and Practice. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Grabau, C. M. (1996). Court Interpreting: View from the Bench. State Court Journal, 20(1), 6–11.
Griffin, P. W., & Cole, S. J. (2007). White Paper on Court Interpretation: Fundamental to Access to Justice. Conference of State Court Administrators.
Hale, S. (2004). The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Hale, S. (2007). Challenges of Court Interpreting: Intricacies, Responsibilities and Ramifications. Alternative Law Journal, 32, 198–202.CrossRef
Hale, S. (2011). Interpreter Policies, Practices and Protocols in Australian Courts and Tribunals: A National Survey. Melbourne: AIJA.
Hammond, R. (1993, October 24). Lost in Translation; For Immigrants in Court, Bad Interpreters Rig the Jury. Washington Post, p. C3.
Harris, D. (1967). The Right to a Fair Trial in Criminal Proceedings as a Human Right. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 16, 352–378.CrossRef
Harris, D. J., O’Boyle, M., & Warbrick, C. (1995). Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. London: Butterworths.
Harris, D. J., O’Boyle, M., Bates, E., & Buckley, C. (2009). Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayes, A., & Hale, S. (2010). Appeals on Incompetent Interpreting. Journal of Judicial Administration, 20(2), 119–130.
Heller, D. J. (1994–95). The Language Bias in the Criminal Justice System. Criminal Law Quarterly, 37, 344–383.
Hench, V. E. (1999). What Kind of Hearing? Some Thoughts on Due Process for the Non-English-Speaking Criminal Defendant. Thurgood Marshall Law Review, 24, 251–278.
Hertog, E., & van Gucht, J. (Eds.). (2008). Status Quaestionis: Questionnaire on the Provision of Legal Interpreting and Translation in the E.U. Antwerpen: Intersentia.
Hertog, E., & Vanden Bosch, Y. (2001). Access to Justice Across Language and Culture in the E.U. In E. Hertog (Ed.), Aequitas: Access to Justice across Language and Culture in the E.U. (pp. 5–21). Antwerpen: Lessius Hogeschool.
Hewitt, W. E., & Lee, R. J. (1996). Behind the Language Barrier, or “You Say You Were Eating an Orange?”. State Court Journal, 20(1), 23–31.
Hovland, D. L. (1992–93). Errors in Interpretation: Why Plain Error Is Not Plain. Law and Inequality, 11, 473–503.
Interpreters in the Courtroom. (2008). [Radio Program] ABC Radio National: Damien Carrick.
Kahaner, S. M. (2008–09). The Administration of Justice in a Multilingual Society – Open to Interpretation or Lost in Translation? Judicature, 92, 224–231.
Karton, J. (2008). Lost in Translation: International Criminal Tribunals and the Legal Implications of Interpreted Testimony. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 41, 1–54.
Kolb, W., & Pöchhacker, F. (2008). Interpreting in Asylum Appeal Hearings: Roles and Norms Revisited. In D. Russell & S. Hale (Eds.), Interpreting in Legal Settings (pp. 26–50). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Koo, A. (2009). Truth Through Court Interpreters. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 13, 212–224.CrossRef
Laster, K., & Taylor, V. L. (1994). Interpreters and the Legal System. Sydney: The Federation Press.
LaVigne, M., & Vernon, M. (2003). An Interpreter Isn’t Enough: Deafness, Language, and Due Process. Wisconsin Law Review, 2003, 843–936.
Leigh, L. H. (1997). The Right to a Fair Trial and the European Convention on Human Rights. In D. Weissbrodt & R. Wolfrum (Eds.), The Right to a Fair Trial (pp. 645–668). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Lindie, B. (1993). Inadequate Interpreting Services in Courts and the Rules of Admissibility of Testimony on Extrajudicial Interpretations. University of Miami Law Review, 48, 399–433.
Lore, M. (2010, March 1). Certified Interpreters in Short Supply Throughout Minnesota Court System. The Minnesota Lawyer.
Loucaides, L. G. (2003). Questions of Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 3, 27–51.CrossRef
Martin, A., & Ortega Herráez, J. M. (2011). Interpreting in the Dock. The Linguist, 50(4), 14–15.
Mason, M. (2008). Courtroom Interpreting. Lanham: University Press of America.
McCaffrey, A. (2000). Don’t Get Lost in Translation: Teaching Law Students to Work with Language Interpreters. Clinical Law Review, 6, 347–398.
McGoldrick, D. (1994). The Human Rights Committee: Its Role in the Development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Merrills, J. G., & Robertson, A. H. (2001). Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Michael, C. O. (2016). Communication of an Interpreter and Fair Trial Under Nigerian Criminal Justice System. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 1(1), 213–233.CrossRef
Mikkelson, H. (2000). Introduction to Court Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Moeketsi, R. H. (1999). Redefining the Role of the South African Court Interpreter. Proteus, 8(3–4), 12–15.
Mojuta, K., & Arua, A. (2016). The Lexical Problems of Court Interpreters in a Botswana High Court. Botswana Note and Records, 48, 193–204.
Morris, R. (1995). The Moral Dilemmas of Court Interpreting. The Translator, 1(1), 25–46.CrossRef
Morris, R. (1998). Justice in Jerusalem – Interpreting in Israeli Legal Proceedings. Meta, 43(1), 110–118.CrossRef
Namakula, C. (2014). Language and the Right to a Fair Hearing in International Criminal Trials. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRef
Nartowska, K. (2015). The Role of the Court Interpreter: A Powerless or Powerful Participant in Criminal Proceedings? The Interpreters Newsletter, 20, 9–32.
Nowak, M. (2005). U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2nd ed.). Kehl: Engel.
O’Brien, C. (2010, June 7). No Quality Controls Laid Down for Courts and Garda Translators. Irish Times, p. 6.
Orakhelashvili, A. (2006). Peremptory Norms in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pantoga, H. (1999). Injustice in Any Language: The Need for Improved Standards Governing Courtroom Interpretation in Wisconsin. Marquette Law Review, 82, 601–664.
Pettys, T. E. (2009). Counsel and Confrontation. Minnesota Law Review, 94, 201–260.
Phelan, M. (2011). Legal Interpreters in the News in Ireland. Translation & Interpreting, 3(1), 76–105.
Robinson, P. (2009). The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law, with Specific Reference to the Work of the ICTY. Berkeley Journal of International Law Publicist, 3, 1–11.
Safford, J. B. (1977). No Comprendo: The Non-English-Speaking Defendant and the Criminal Process. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 68, 15–30.CrossRef
Schabas, W. A. (2007). An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Schweda-Nicholson, N. (1989). Ad Hoc Court Interpreters in the United States: Equality, Inequality, Quality. Meta, 34(4), 711–723.CrossRef
Schweda-Nicholson, N., & Martinsen, B. (1995). Court Interpretation in Denmark. In S. E. Carr, R. P. Roberts, A. Dufour, & D. Steyn (Eds.), The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community (pp. 259–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shepard, R. T. (2007). Access to Justice for People Who Do Not Speak English. Indiana Law Review, 40, 643–657.
Shlesinger, M. (1989). Monitoring the Courtroom Interpreter. Parallèles, 11, 29–36.
Shulman, M. B. (1993). No Hablo Ingles: Court Interpretation as a Major Obstacle to Fairness for Non-English Speaking Defendants. Vanderbilt Law Review, 46, 175–196.
Spencer, J. R. (2005). Introduction. In M. Delmas-Marty & J. R. Spencer (Eds.), European Criminal Procedures (pp. 1–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spronken, T., & Attinger, M. (2005). Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings: Existing Level of Safeguards in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.
Stavros, S. (1993). The Guarantees for Accused Persons Under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: An Analysis of the Application of the Convention and a Comparison with Other Instruments. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.
Steele, G. J. (1991–92). Court Interpreters in Canadian Criminal Law. Criminal Law Quarterly, 34, 218–251.
Stern, L. (2001). At the Junction of Cultures: Interpreting at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Light of Other International Interpreting Practices. The Judicial Review, 5(3), 255–274.
Stern, L. (2011). Courtroom Interpreting. In K. Malmkjær & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 325–342). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steytler, N. C. (1993). Implementing Language Rights in Court: The Role of the Court Interpreter. South African Journal on Human Rights, 9, 205–222.CrossRef
Trechsel, S. (2005). Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tuck, B. M. (2010). Comment: Preserving Facts, Form, and Function When a Deaf Witness with Minimal Language Skills Testifies in Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158, 905–955.
Turner, J. I. (2005). Nationalizing International Criminal Law. Stanford Journal of International Law, 41, 1–51.
Tursun, G. (2010). The Protection of Minorities in Court Proceedings: A Perspective on Bilingual Justice in China. Chinese Journal of International Law, 9, 537–563.CrossRef
van Dijk, P. (2003). Access to Court. In R. St, J. MacDonald, F. Matscher, & H. Petzold (Eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (pp. 345–379). Dordrecht: Nijhoff.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953). 213 UNTS 221, signed 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953.
Court Interpreter’s Act of 1978 (United States) 28 USC §1827.
Human Rights Committee (1978). Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Federal Republic of Germany. In: Human Rights Committee (22 November 1978). Report of the Human Rights Committee, U.N. Doc. A/33/40.
Human Rights Committee (1979). Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Bulgaria. In: Human Rights Committee (27 November 1979). Report of the Human Rights Committee, U.N. Doc. A/34/40.
Human Rights Committee (1984). General Comment No. 13: Equality before the Courts and the Right to a Fair and Public Hearing by an Independent Court Established by Law (Art. 14) (13 April 1984) U.N. Doc. A/39/40 at 143.
Human Rights Committee (1985). Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Canada. In: Human Rights Committee (19 September 1985). Report of the Human Rights Committee, U.N. Doc. A/40/40.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976). 999 UNTS 171, adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002). 2187 UNTS 90, adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002.
Barry Stephen Harward v. Norway (HRC 1994). Communication No. 451/1991 (15 July 1994) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/451/1991.
Cuscani v. United Kingdom (ECtHR 2002). Application No. 32771/96 (24 September 2002) 36 EHRR 2.
De La Espriella-Velasco v. The Queen (Court of Appeal Western Australia 2006) 197 Fed. Law R. 125 (Australia).
Dominique Guesdon v. France (HRC 1990). Communication No. 219/1986 (25 July 1990) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/219/1986.
Gerald John Griffin v. Spain (HRC 1995). Communication No. 493/1992 (4 April 1995) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/53/D/493/1992.
Hervé Barzhig v. France (HRC 1991). Communication No. 327/1988 (11 April 1991) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/41/D/327/1988.
Kamasinski v. Austria (ECtHR 1989). Application No. 9783/82 (19 December 1989) Series A No. 168.
Lagerblom v. Sweden (ECtHR 2003). Application No. 26891/95 (14 January 2003).
Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany (ECtHR 1978). Application Nos. 6210/73, 6877/75 & 7132/75 (28 November 1978) Series A No. 29.
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC 2006) ICC-01/04-01/06 (Pre-Trial Chamber I) Decision on the Requests of the Defence of 3 and 4 July 2006. In: A. Klip and G. Sluiter (Eds.), Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals: The International Criminal Court (2005–2007), Vol. 23. Antwerp: Intersentia, pp. 463–466.
Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić (ICTY 1997). Case No. IT-96-21-T (Trial Chamber) Order on Zdravko Mucic’s Oral Request for Serbo-Croatian Interpretation (23 June 1997).
R. v. Johnson (1987) 25 A. Crim. R. 433 (Australia).
R. v. Tran (Supreme Court 1994) 2 Supreme Court R. 951 (Canada).
Shukuru Juma v. Australia (HRC 2003). Communication No. 984/2001 (28 July 2002) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/984/2001.
United States ex rel. Negron v. New York (2nd Cir. 1970). 434 F.2d. 386 (United States).
United States v. Febus (7th Cir. 2000). 218 F.3d. 784 (United States).
United States v. Joshi (11th Cir. 1990). 896 F.2d. 1303 (United States).
United States v. Mosquera (EDNY 1993). 816 F.Supp. 168 (United States).
United States v. Tapia (5th Cir. 1980). 631 F.2d. 1207 (United States).
Victor P. Domukovsky and others v. Georgia (HRC 1998). Communications Nos. 623/1995, 624/1995, 626/1995, 627/1995 (6 April 1998) U.N. Docs. CCPR/C/62/D/623/1995, CCPR/C/62/D/624/1995, CCPR/C/62/D/626/1995, CCPR/C/62/D/627/1995.
X. v. Germany (E.U. Commission 1983). Application No. 10221/82, 6 EHRR 353.
Metadaten
Titel
The Right to an Interpreter
verfasst von
John Henry Dingfelder Stone
Copyright-Jahr
2018
Buch
Court Interpreters and Fair Trials

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75354-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-75355-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2018

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75355-3_2