A/70/212
non-discrimination and recognize that special measures should be taken to ensure
meaningful access for minorities. 56
2.
Linguistic minorities and the criminal process
41. Access to an interpreter is an essential fair trial guarantee for any person
accused who does not understand the language in which the proceedings will be
conducted. 57 This right, however, is not always fully implemented or respected in
practice. 58
42. A recent study of Sierra Leone underscores the importance of translation: of
individuals interviewed in pretrial detention, 9 per cent did not understand English,
the language typically used in the courts. 59
43. From a minority rights perspective, every individual should also have the
right, whether as accused or as witness, to use his or her native language in criminal
proceedings, even if capable of communicating in a majority l anguage. 60 This is
important both for the protection and promotion of identity and to ensure effective
and informed participation. In Slovenia, for instance, some municipalities with a
significant concentration of Italian- and Hungarian-speaking minorities permit the
use of these languages in court proceedings. 61
44. It has been suggested that harsher sentencing can result from bias introduced
by interpretation, because of cultural differences unintentional expression of the
interpreter’s preconceptions, 62 or negative perceptions of the accused’s or the
witness’s credibility by the court or jury due to interpretation. 63 Caution must be
exercised when using a non-certified translator or interpreter, and all interrogation
and other records should specify the identity and status of any such person. If
__________________
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
15-12578
United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid, principles 6 and 10; Basic
Principles on the Role of Lawyers, principle 2; E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/7, para. 24; A/62/18,
para. 412 (CERD, Mozambique, 2007); CERD/C/HRV/CO/8 (CERD, Croatia, 2009); and
A/HRC/27/48/Add.4 (Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Visit to Hungary, 2014), para. 120.
CERD General Recommendation 31 (2005), para. 30, and Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (revised 2015). rule 55 (1).
CERD/C/MAR/CO/17-18 (CERD, 2010); CERD/C/NO/CO/19-20 (CERD, 2011);
CERD/C/ROU/CO/16-19 (CERD, 2010); CCPR/C/MKD/CO/2 (HRC, 2008); CCPR/C/CHNMAC/CO/1 (Human Rights Committee, 2013); CERD/C/COL/CO/14 (CERD, 2009);
CERD/C/FJI/CO/18-20 (CERD, 2012); CERD/C/IRN/CO-18-19 (CERD 2010); and
CERD/C/CHL/CO/19-21 (CERD, 2013).
Timap for Justice, Prison Watch Sierra Leone, UNDP and Open Society Justice Initiative, The
Socioeconomic Impact of Pretrial Detention in Sierra Leone (New York, Open Society
Foundation, 2013).
E.g., article 20 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, adopted at the World
Conference on Linguistic Rights (1996); OSCE Oslo Recommendations regardi ng the Linguistic
Rights of National Minorities and Explanatory Note (1998), recommendations 17 and 18; and
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ETS No. 148) (1992), article 9 (1) (a) (ii).
Antonija Petricusic, “Slovenian legislative system for minority protection”, Noves SL. Revista
de Sociolingüìstica (autumn 2004). Available from http://www.gencat.cat/llengua/noves/noves/
hm04tardor/docs/petricusic.pdf.
D. J. Heller, “Language bias in the criminal justice system”, 37 Crim.L.Q 344 (1995).
Grabau and Gibbons, “The rights of linguistic minorities: challenges to court interpretation ”,
30 New Eng. L. Rev. 335 (1995-1996). Generally: C. S. Namakula, Language and the Right to
Fair Hearing in International Criminal Trials (Springer International Publishing, 2014).
13/27