Category Archives: Contextos judiciales

by monzo

On the limits of translation in legal-lay communication

Dr. Philipp S. Angermeyer

In democratic societies, the use of interpreters or translators is widely viewed as a suitable remedy for preserving the rights of individuals who interact with the judicial system but are not proficient in its dominant language. However, this view tends to ignore the effects of interpreting and translation on legal-lay communication. Drawing on pragmatic and sociolinguistic analyses of court interpreting and of written translation in institutional contexts, this talk explores ways in which particular practices of translation may disadvantage and discriminate against speakers of non-dominant languages. 

by monzo

Linguistic injustice despite language rights. Raising awareness on language barriers for vulnerable groups in legal settings in Belgium: minors as a case

Katalin Balogh and Heidi Salaets

The right to an interpreter is part and parcel of the roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings. Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings has sought to lay down common minimal rules on this fair trial right. Arguably, the directive could be seen as a push towards the institutionalisation of interpreting and the professionalisation of interpreters in criminal proceedings.

Assuming that vulnerability means a suspect’s or accused’s difficulty in understanding or following the content or the meaning of the proceedings, the interpreter could be seen as the gateway to facilitate such understanding.

Moreover, the 2012/29/EU establishes minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, even more so if the victim is a child.

In our presentation, we wish to outline our research on foreign language  (FL) speaking minors. Next to FL-speaking minors involved in criminal proceedings (as victims or suspects), the cases presented will also consider FL-speaking (non-accompanied) minors involved in asylum procedures in Belgium.

We will critically reflect on the (lack of) underlying assumptions and definitions as to what that role of the interpreter is, in particular in light of the vulnerability of FL-speaking minors. We will elucidate and build our reflections on the basis of empirical research that sought to clarify the perspectives of the different actors involved in interpreter-mediated interaction in the legal sphere. What is new is that we will specifically consider the minors’ viewpoints: through interviews with vulnerable minors, we will illustrate their view on the interpreter’s role and competences. By listening to the minors’ voices, we definitely respond to their need to the right to participation, as described in article 12 of the CRC (Child Rights Convention) of the UN.

Keywords: criminal proceedings, legal interpreting, minors, vulnerability, code of ethics, role and competences, fair trial.

by monzo

Iniciatives davant un problema estructural en l’administració de justícia de les Illes Balears

Maria Ballester Cardell

En el 5è informe del comitè d’experts sobre els compromisos adquirits per l’Estat espanyol en relació a la Carta Europea per a les Llengües Regionals o Minoritàries, i en relació a les Illes Balears, es proposa la modificació de la Llei Orgànica del Poder Judicial per a garantir l’ús del català en els processos judicials quan ho sol·liciti una de les parts, així com utilitzar el català en relació a l’Administració General de l’Estat.

Encara ara l’àmbit judicial es manté com un entorn dissuasiu per a l’ús de la llengua catalana, que es troba en una situació especialment precària. Hi ha una enorme distància entre l’ús social del català i l’ús de la llengua pròpia en l’administració de justícia. Si en l’àmbit judicial l’administració no s’adreça als ciutadans en la llengua pròpia del territori no és realista pensar en l’avanç de l’ús del català en aquest entorn, en el qual, a més, el ciutadà es pot sentir més desprotegit i vulnerable. Tot i que la llei obliga que l’administració s’adapti per salvaguardar els drets d’opció lingüística dels ciutadans, finalment és la societat la que s’ha d’adequar a l’administració de justícia. La qual cosa fa perdurar una situació precària i un xoc entre els drets dels ciutadans (formalment reconeguts) i la realitat pràctica, en què l’ús del català en l’esfera judicial és pràcticament testimonial.

En la presentació de Memòria anual de 2020 del Tribunal Superior de Justícia de les Illes Balears, el President del Tribunal Superior de Justícia anuncia una línia d’actuació d’impuls del català amb l’objectiu de superar l’endarreriment de la implantació de llengua catalana en l’administració de justícia. Es tracta d’un pla que es pretén amplificar la informació sobre els drets lingüístics en l’àmbit de l’administració de justícia, com ara emprar cartells informatius en els edificis judicials, mitjançant els quals es recordi als ciutadans que es poden dirigir als jutges o magistrats en llengua catalana; posar a disposició dels membres de la carrera judicial diccionaris lèxics de traducció de la terminologia jurídica; i disposar en la Gerència Territorial del Ministeri de Justícia d’uns programes de traducció automatitzada perquè es puguin fer les traduccions que s’hagin de menester. El president del Tribunal Superior de Justícia expressa la seva voluntat d’implicar també a altres entitats o institucions, com Direcció General de Política Lingüística, la Universitat de les Illes Balears i els Col·legis d’Advocats i de Procuradors de les Illes Balears.

Paraules clau: administració de Justícia, drets lingüístics.

by monzo

Pass or Punish? An examination of the lived experiences of Irish-speakers and Irish Sign Language Users in the Irish Criminal Justice System

Dr Gearóidín McEvoy

In this paper I explore how Irish-speakers and Deaf Irish Sign Language (ISL) users interacted with the criminal justice system (CJS) in Ireland, and how the use of their language impacted their right to a fair trial. This paper presents analysis of data collected in semi-structured interviews with Irish-speakers and ISL-users who experienced the CJS as accused persons, lawyers who had experience representing such persons, employees of the Irish police service and academic experts. 

I will present two tropes arose which arose in the data to contextualise the experiences of Irish-speakers and ISL-users. First is the ‘créatúr’, coming from the Irish word meaning pitiful one, wretch or creature. It applied to Deaf people who were not seen as autonomous, competent beings. Secondly is the ‘slíbhín’ or the sneak or troublemaker. This trope applied to both Irish speakers and Deaf people. Those interviewed were not seen in light of their true identities and this impacted their journeys through the CJS. 

In terms of the effect of these tropes, interviewees were faced with either having to ‘pass’ or to be ‘punished’ when engaging with the CJS. They had to pretend not to be an Irish-speaker or a Deaf person, to ‘pass’ as ‘normal’ in order to be fairly treated. This process of passing is known to impact the self-image and esteem of people, by telling them that who they are is bad, wrong or even criminal. Otherwise, interviewees could display their true identities as Deaf or as Irish speaking and then suffer punishment. What this shows is that marginalised people can be forced to change who they are in order to experience fairness,  in spite of human rights, constitutional safeguards and legislative provisions which are supposed to guarantee fairness of trial, irrespective of language.

Keywords: Irish, Irish sign language, Deaf, ISL, criminal law, police, interpreter, language, identity, passing, punishment, crime

by monzo

To interpret or not to interpret? Observations on the role of the interpreter in the courts of law in Wales

Professor R. Gwynedd Parry

Language justice is social justice. However, achieving language justice is not a linear but a continual process. One that comprises ongoing education and training of all stakeholders to ensure meaningful access to services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals through translation and interpreting. This research project explores current practices around language access and the provision of translation and interpreting services, in relation to both state and federal language access guidelines in the United States. It does so within the broader framework of language access as a catalyst for achieving greater equity and social justice among minoritized, LEP communities. It builds on existing translation and interpreting research on (in)equities in access to social services for these communities. Accessing information in one’s preferred language and desired modality is critical to their ability to participate fully in all areas of daily life. Despite existing state and federal policies that require health and social services to comply with language access guidelines, the COVID-19 pandemic shined a light on the inconsistencies, and the ad hoc approach to provisioning these services. Thus, this project explores the critical components which are paramount to building language justice and offers a model for increasing interpreter and translator capacity through interprofessional education and training. Lastly, it re-examines existing and considers additional best practices for language access in the U.S.

Keywords: Legal System in Wales; interpreters and translators; official languages.

by monzo

What was the language of the judgment again? – Traces of bilingualism in monolingual trial judgments

Alexander Teutsch

Judicial proceedings tend to favour monolingualism over multilingualism, even where different languages are at play in the courtroom (Maryns, 2012). Courtroom interpretation, for instance, is often considered a technical act, merely transposing oral statements into the “language of the proceeding” (Berk-Seligson, 2017), while prior evidence presented in a foreign language is mostly translated and, where provided orally, rapidly transcribed into a sole language (Bucholtz, 1995; 2007). Even in bi- and multilingual jurisdictions, the preference for a single procedural language leads to the phenomenon of absorption of utterances made in other idioms into that language (Powell, 2008). 

This is exemplified by what this paper claims to be the most evident and misleading representation of the “myth of monolingualism”: the judgment. In framing their decisions, judges mostly pretend all the legal material they cite is in the same language as their judgement. Remarks about sources, i.e. evidence, legislation, or case law, issued in another language are rarely made.This paper aims at uncovering this “myth of monolingualism” of proceedings by showing how, in multilingual jurisdictions, language multiplicity constitutes not just the possibility of having a trial, or parts thereof, in one or another language. More precisely, multilingual courts, operating on a national or subnational level, where legal experts work with different languages on a daily basis, should not be reduced to an “either-or” frame. Rather, they should be seen as working in constant interaction between these languages, by engaging in comparison and translation, in spite of a proceeding officially labelled as monolingual. By analysing “monolingual” judgments issued by first instance judges (giudice di pace/Friedensrichter) in the bilingual province of Südtirol/Alto-Adige (German/Italian) in Italy, this paper shows how overlaps between these two languages occur in judicial reasoning. These include (i) “collages”, being single sentences imported from the other language; (ii) literal translations and summaries; and (iii) direct quotations from the other language.

Keywords: multilingualism; language contact; judicial reasoning; forensic linguistics; 

by monzo

When interpreting does not remove the language barrier: interpreter ethics at odds with due process in U.S. courts

Janis Palma

Non-English-Speakers and Limited English Proficient individuals (jointly referred to as LEPs in this paper) who come before the courts in the United States as criminal defendants face at least two major obstacles to full comprehension of the proceedings against them: being unable to speak or understand the language of the courts and the dramatic differences between the criminal justice system in the U.S. and their home countries. These differences in legal systems are rarely, if ever, taken into account when addressing LEP populations’ due process rights. Several court opinions at the federal level prior to the 1970s culminated in the Court Interpreters Act (28 U.S.C. 1827), which triggered the creation of a nationwide interpreter certification program. Subsequently, however, an independent nonprofit organization produced a Model Code of Ethics for interpreters that has been adopted by nearly every state and professional association. Its practical effect has been to nullify all pre-existing jurisprudence concerning LEPs’ constitutional rights by imposing an accuracy canon on interpreters that disregards the intended listener’s capacity to comprehend what is being interpreted. Based on the language of applicable statutes and court decisions, I exemplify how the current accuracy standard for interpreters in legal settings jeopardizes LEP criminal defendants’ due process rights. Guided by the prevailing theories on interpreting and translation, I argue in favor of revising this section of the Code and propose a new accuracy standard for interpreters in legal settings that takes into account the intended listener while making the proper allowances for evidentiary requirements. I further propose that such standards would necessarily have to be different for each of the settings in which interpreters engage with LEP defendants throughout a criminal prosecution, from initial contact with law enforcement to imposition of sentence.

Keywords: Interpreting, court interpreting, interpreter ethics, judiciary interpreting, accuracy standards, U.S. courts, interpreter certification, translation.

by monzo

Are language rights a component of a fair trial under French criminal procedure?

Agata de Laforcade

Academic Director, Department of Law, Languages and Intercultural Challenges at ISIT

After the transposition of Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, the preliminary article of the French Code of Criminal Procedure containing the most important principles in this area provides that if the suspect or accused does not understand the French language, he or she is entitled to be assisted by an interpreter during any questioning, hearing or interviews forming part of the proceedings, as well as during interviews with his or her lawyer. He or she is also entitled to receive a translation of the documents essential for exercising his or her defense and for guaranteeing a fair trial. Legal enshrinement of language rights during criminal proceedings in the preliminary article was an important step and highly symbolic, but does it mean that language rights are considered today as a real component of the right to a fair trial? The answer to this question is not obvious. This presentation will set out the arguments in favor of considering language rights as a component of a fair trial, and well as some arguments that cast doubt upon the fundamental value of language rights in French criminal proceedings.

Keywords: fair trail, language rights, criminal proceedings

by monzo

¿Signos de Justicia?: la interpretación signada de procesos judiciales en España

Rayco H. González-Montesino

Las personas sordas usuarias de las lenguas de signos en España han sido a lo largo de décadas objeto de discriminación en el ejercicio de sus derechos como ciudadanos, incluso de aquellos considerados fundamentales. Entre ellos, y respaldado por tratados internacionales y por la legislación nacional, se encuentra el de disfrutar de una tutela judicial efectiva y un juicio justo. Desde la aprobación de la Ley 27/2007, por la que se reconoce el uso de las lenguas de signos en nuestro país, las personas sordas signantes disponen de una herramienta esencial para tratar de salvaguardar sus derechos en los diferentes contextos sociales, entre ellos el judicial. Sin embargo, el análisis de la filosofía con la que se creó esta norma y de su articulado, así como de la transposición a nuestro ordenamiento jurídico de varias directivas europeas sobre traducción e interpretación, nos permite afirmar que esa protección podría calificarse de ficticia. La falta de responsabilidad que hasta el momento asume la Administración de Justicia en España para dotar a los procedimientos judiciales de servicios de interpretación en lengua de signos profesionales y de calidad contrastada, que garanticen las destrezas, competencias y cualificaciones académicas necesarias para desempeñar esta labor, pone en riesgo la garantía de derechos —incluido los lingüísticos— de las personas sordas y coarta su libertad como ciudadanos.

by monzo

Lost in Translation: Interpretation as a barrier to asylum in Immigration Courts

Edith Muleiro

Panel: Inclusive Responses to Language Violence

Chair: Edith Muleiro

The first presentation focuses on research surrounding interpretation in U.S. Immigration Courts and social services, with a comparative lens based on the panelist’s work in Spain. For asylum seekers worldwide, lack of language access is particularly problematic because the inability to convey their stories may be the difference between life and death. 

In the US, this research was carried out in Texas. Immigrants who speak a language other than English struggle to access quality interpretation and translation in US courtrooms due to a variety of linguistic, social, and cultural challenges. To learn more about this language polemic, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 professionals who work in social service and judicial systems related to immigration courts in Texas. 

Findings indicated that the largest gaps and challenges pertain to interpreter training, reporting pathways, working conditions, telephonic interpretation, translation of documents, and interpretation for detained respondents. Policy implications include suggested changes to the current interpretation system which integrate language justice principles. 

These findings will be compared to observations of interpretation practices within social services in Spain, based on Edith Muleiro’s role as a social service coordinator at a non-profit that works with LGBTI+ migrants. This comparison seeks to highlight the similarities within the systems that asylum seekers travel through worldwide.