Language rights in the minimum guarantees of fair criminal trial
Issue: Vol 19 No. 1 (2012)
Journal: International Journal of Speech Language and the Law
Subject Areas: Linguistics
Abstract:
The linguistic dynamics of a multilingual trial are significant determinants of fair hearing. By analysing the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals, on language and fair trial, this article attempts to situate language guarantees in the framework of the fundamental right to fair trial. If successful, this could raise the profile of the entire debate on language in international criminal trials, and hopefully instigate reform. Notably, the effective participation of a person in his/her trial is a function of language. From the information of charges, through the process of defence, examining witnesses and interpreting the evidence, language is a significant handmaid. Specifically, translation, as an indispensable component of a multilingual trial, enhances the relevance of linguistic forces to the realisation of a fair criminal trial.
Author: Catherine S. Namakula
References :
Arzoz, X. (2007) The nature of language rights. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe 2: 1–35.
Arzoz, X. (2009) Language rights as legal norms. European Public Law 15: 554–574.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990) The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blanchard, S. (2008) An assessment of the ECCC order on translation rights and obligations. Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-CAM).
Brown-Blake, C. (2006) Fair trial, language and the right to interpretation. International Journal on Minority & Group Rights 13: 391–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181106779848368
Cotterill, J. (2000) Reading the rights: a cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility. Forensic Linguistics 7(1): 4–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/sll.2000.7.1.4
De Elera, A. (2005) What place for linguistic diversity, language equality and rights in the language arrangements of the European Union? (Introduction) in Richard L. Creech, Law and Language in the European Union: The Paradox of a Babel ‘United in Diversity?’ Groningen: Europe Law Publishing.
De Francia, C. (2001) Due process in international criminal courts: why procedure matters. Virginia Law Review 87: 1381–1412. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1073852
Donnelly, S.J.M. (1994) The Language and Uses of Rights: A Biopsy of American Jurisprudence in the Twentieth Century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Eades, D. (ed.) (1995) Language in Evidence: Issues Confronting Aboriginal and Multicultural Australia (Introduction). Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Floyd, J. (2005) International Injustice Rwanda, Genocide and Cover-up: The United Nations Media Trial. Washington DC: Kabuki Press.
Gaiba, F. (1998) The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Harris, D. (1967) The right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings as a human right. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 16: 352–378.
Henrard, K. (2000) Language and the administration of justice: the international framework. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 7: 75–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718110020907927
Human Rights Committee (1984) General Comment 13 ‘Equality before the courts and the right to a fair and public hearing by the independent court established by law’ 13 April 1984 UN Doc A/39/40.
Human Rights Committee (2007) General Comment 32(90) ‘Equality before the courts and the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent court established by law’ 27 July 2007. UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/32.
Human Rights Watch (2004) Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity: Topical Digests of the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRW,LEGALPOLICY,,415c04664,0.html
Karton, J. (2008) Lost in translation: international criminal tribunals and the legal implications of interpreted testimony. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1: 1–54.
Moss, J.S. (1959–1960) Examination and cross examination of witnesses. South Texas Law Journal 5: 83–93.
Shuy, R.W. and Staton, J.J. (2000) Review of Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights. Forensic Linguistics 7(1): 131–136.