Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Language Rights in the Minimum Guarantees of Fair Criminal Trial

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Language and the Right to Fair Hearing in International Criminal Trials

  • 697 Accesses

Abstract

The analysis of Language Rights in the Minimum Guarantees of Fair Criminal Trial challenges the assumption that linguistic human rights must be interpreted as ideals and aspirations, and not as enforceable entitlements already recognised by international binding rules. It distinguishes the status of linguistic rights of participants in an international criminal trial, as actionable rights, by demonstrating the significance of language to the fulfilment of the minimum guarantees of fair hearing. Expounding the entitlements inherent in the fair trial provision in the Interna- 10tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the constitutive statutes of International Criminal Tribunals (ICTs), it is established that language warranties characterise the minimum guarantees of trial fairness as either explicit or implied terms. Thus, linguistic fair trial rights are priority rights and central to the integrity of legal process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Harris (1967), p. 352.

  2. 2.

    Adopted by GA Res 2200A (XXI) 16 December 1966.

  3. 3.

    DeFrancia (2001), p. 1384.

  4. 4.

    Arzoz (2007), p. 2.

  5. 5.

    Arzoz (2007), p. 3.

  6. 6.

    Arzoz (2009), p. 554.

  7. 7.

    De Elera (2005), p. 271.

  8. 8.

    Donnelly (1994), p. 7.

  9. 9.

    Donnelly (1994), p. 8.

  10. 10.

    Donnelly (1994), p. 82.

  11. 11.

    Donnelly (1994), p. 9.

  12. 12.

    Donnelly (1994), p. 9.

  13. 13.

    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 para 2.

  14. 14.

    Article 10 UDHR (1948) 43 AJIL supp 127.

  15. 15.

    Article XVIII American Declaration (1948) reprinted in ‘Human Rights in the American States’ PAU preliminary edition (1960)155.

  16. 16.

    Article 6 ECHR (1950) as amended Rome 4.XI.1950.

  17. 17.

    Article 8 American Convention OAS Treaty Series No 36 1144 UNTS 123.

  18. 18.

    As amended promulgated on 6 June 2003 (NS/RKM/1004/006).

  19. 19.

    Langford (2009), p. 38.

  20. 20.

    Langford (2009), p. 38.

  21. 21.

    Langford (2009), p. 38.

  22. 22.

    Langford (2009), p. 38. See Raney v Commonwealth 153 SW 2d 935, 937-38(1941) (Ky): a fair trial is one where the accused person’s legal rights are safeguarded and respected.

  23. 23.

    See Preparatory Work on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Information Document Prepared by the Secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights DH(56)11 Strasbourg (8 October 1956), p. 8, para 5.

  24. 24.

    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) para 5.

  25. 25.

    Bossuyt (1987), p. 280. See also Nicholson (2009), p. 70: there is no ‘upper limit’ of rights, only minimum standards are established—Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on Certain Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings throughout the European Union.

  26. 26.

    General Comment 32(90) HRC (2007) para 3.

  27. 27.

    Preparatory Work on Article 6 ECHR (1956) para 20.

  28. 28.

    See General Comment 32(90) HRC (2007) para 31–40, See also Harris (1967), p. 361.

  29. 29.

    Garner (1999), p. 711.

  30. 30.

    Garner (1999), p. 1322.

  31. 31.

    Donnelly (1994), p. 2.

  32. 32.

    Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v Prosecutor ICTR-97-19 AC Decision (3 November 1999).

  33. 33.

    Prosecutor v Dragan Nikolić IT-94-2-AR73 Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Legality of Arrest (5 June 2003), paras 28–33.

  34. 34.

    Article 14 (3) (a) ICCPR.

  35. 35.

    Prosecutor v André Ntagerura and ors ICTR-99-46-T Judgement (25 February 2004), para 29.

  36. 36.

    Mikaeli Muhimana v Prosecutor ICTR-95-1B-A Judgement (21 May 2007) 86. See Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Interpretation of the Right to be Informed para 2.

  37. 37.

    Article 9 (1) ICCPR.

  38. 38.

    Barayagwiza AC Decision (3 November 1999), para 81.

  39. 39.

    See Barayagwiza AC Decision (3 November 1999), para 81.

  40. 40.

    Barayagwiza AC Decision (3 November 1999), para 81.

  41. 41.

    384 U.S. 436 (1966) 13 June 1966.

  42. 42.

    Prosecutor v Tihomir Blaškić IT-95-14-PT Decision on the Defence Motion to Dismiss the Indictment based upon Defects in the Form thereof (Vagueness/Lack of Adequate Notice of the Charges) (4 April 1997) p. 13.

  43. 43.

    ICCPR.

  44. 44.

    Prosecutor v Milan Kovačević IT-97-24-AR73 AC Decision (2 July 1998) Judge Shahabuddeen.

  45. 45.

    Prosecutor v Vojislav Šešelj IT-03-67-PT Order on Translation of Documents (6 March 2003).

  46. 46.

    General Comment 32(90) (2007) para 31.

  47. 47.

    Prosecutor v Vojislav Šešelj IT-03-67-PT Order on Translation of Documents (6 March 2003).

  48. 48.

    Ntagerura Judgement (25 February 2004), para 29.

  49. 49.

    Prosecutor v Vojislav Šešelj IT-03-67-PT Order on Translation of Documents (6 March 2003).

  50. 50.

    Cotterill (2000), p. 10.

  51. 51.

    Henrard (2000), p. 88.

  52. 52.

    Prosecutor v Germain Katanga Judgement on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled ‘Decision on the Defence Request Concerning Languages No. 01/04-01/07(OA 3)’ (27 May 2008) para 3.

  53. 53.

    Adopted by the Assembly of States Parties first session (New York) 3–10 September 2002 Official Records ICC-ASP/1/3.

  54. 54.

    Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo ICC-01/04-01/06 Decision on Confirmation of Charges (29 January 2007), para 17.

  55. 55.

    Article 61 Statute of the International Criminal Court 17 July 1998, DOC A/CONF 183/9.

  56. 56.

    Article 61(5) ICC Statute.

  57. 57.

    Article 61(6) a, b & c ICC Statute.

  58. 58.

    Article 61(7) ICC Statute.

  59. 59.

    ICC RPE.

  60. 60.

    Cotterill (2000), p. 20.

  61. 61.

    Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo ICC-01/04-01/06 Transcript (26 January 2009), p. 2.

  62. 62.

    Shuy and Staton (2000), p. 131.

  63. 63.

    Cotterill (2000), pp. 20–21.

  64. 64.

    Cotterill (2000), p. 21.

  65. 65.

    Cotterill (2000), p. 21.

  66. 66.

    Shuy and Staton (2000)), p. 131.

  67. 67.

    Shuy and Staton (2000), pp. 132–133.

  68. 68.

    Lubanga Transcript (26 January 2009), p. 2.

  69. 69.

    Prosecutor v Ratko Mladić IT-09-92-I Transcript (3 June 2011), pp. 6–9.

  70. 70.

    See Judge Orie, Prosecutor v Ratko Mladić IT-09-92-I Transcript (3 June 2011), p. 1.

  71. 71.

    See Judge Orie, Prosecutor v Ratko Mladić IT-09-92-I Transcript (3 June 2011), pp. 11–19.

  72. 72.

    Article 14(3)(b) ICCPR, Prosecutor v Ferdinand Nahimana, Hassan Ngeze, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza ICTR-99-52-T (Media Case) Decision on the Motion to Stay the Proceedings in the Trial of Ferdinand Nahimana (5 June 2003), para 5.

  73. 73.

    General Comment 32(90) (2007) para 32, Prosecutor v Théoneste Bagosora and ors ICTR-98-41-T Decision on Defence Motion for Reconsideration of the Trial Chamber’s Decision and Scheduling Order of 5 December 2001 (18 July 2003) para 15.

  74. 74.

    Prosecutor v Milomir Stakić IT-97-24-A Decision on Motion for Extension of Time (30 October 2003).

  75. 75.

    Prosecutor v Fatmir Limaj and ors IT-03-66-A Decision on Extension of Time (16 February 2006), paras 2, 14.

  76. 76.

    Prosecutor v Vujadin Popović and ors IT-05-88-PT Decision on Joint Defence Motion seeking the Trial Chamber to order the Registrar to provide the Defence with BCS Transcripts of Proceedings in two past cases before the International Tribunal (06 March 2006).

  77. 77.

    General Comment 32 (90) (2007) para 33.

  78. 78.

    Prosecutor v Vujadin Popović and ors IT-05-88-PT Decision on Joint Defence Motions Requesting the Translation of the Pre-Trial Brief and Specific Motions, IT-05-88-PT (24 May 2006), para 8.

  79. 79.

    General Comment 32(90) (2007) para 32.

  80. 80.

    Media Case Decision on the Motion to Stay the Proceedings in the Trial of Ferdinand Nahimana (5 June 2003) para 5.

  81. 81.

    Media Case Appeals Chamber Judgement (28 November 2007), para 220.

  82. 82.

    Prosecutor v Paul Bisengimana ICTR-2002-60-I Decision on Bisengimana’s Motion for Complete and Accurate Translation into Working Languages of the Tribunal and Respect for the Rights of the Accused (7 March 2003), paras 6, 9.

  83. 83.

    Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvočka and ors IT-98-30/1-A Decision on Zoran Žigić’s Motion for Translation of Documents Pertaining to his Appeal (3 October 2002).

  84. 84.

    Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvočka and ors IT-98-30/1-A Decision on Zoran Žigić’s Motion for Translation of Documents Pertaining to his Appeal (3 October 2002), para 33.

  85. 85.

    Harward v Norway CCPR Communication (451/1991) (15 July 1994), paras 9.4 and 9.5.

  86. 86.

    See Order on Translation Rights and Obligations (23 June 2008), ECCC para 4.

  87. 87.

    See Blanchard (2008).

  88. 88.

    Floyd (2005), p. 142.

  89. 89.

    Floyd (2005), p. 143.

  90. 90.

    Harward v Norway (15 July 1994), para 1.

  91. 91.

    Prosecutor v Pavle Strugar IT-01-42-T (‘Strugar Decision’) Decision on the Defence Motion to Terminate Proceedings (26 May 2004), para 22.

  92. 92.

    Prosecutor v Casimir Bizimungu ICTR-99-50-I Decision on the Defence Motion to Protect the Applicant’s Right to Full answer and Defence (15 November 2002), para 24.

  93. 93.

    Harward v Norway (15 July 1994), para 34.

  94. 94.

    Article 14 (3) (c) ICCPR.

  95. 95.

    Prosecutor v Zdravko Tolimir and ors IT-04-80-AR73.1 Decision on Radivoje Miletić’s Interlocutory Appeal against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Joinder of Accused (27 January 2006) para 25.

  96. 96.

    General Comment 32 (90) (2007) para 35.

  97. 97.

    Prosecutor v Vidoje Blagojević & Dragan Jokić IT-02-60-T Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for a Stay of Proceedings Pending Resolution of the Issue of Vidoje Blagojević’s Representation, (18 June 2003).

  98. 98.

    General Comment 13 (1984) para 10.

  99. 99.

    Common Rule (3) E ICTY RPE; ICTR RPE; Rule (3) D SCSL RPE; Rule 42 ICC RPE.

  100. 100.

    Rule 3 (f) (i) & (ii) ICTY RPE. See also Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo ICC-01/04-01/06 Decision on the translation of the Article 74 Decision and related Procedural issues (15 December 2011).

  101. 101.

    Media Case Judgement (28 November 2007), paras 220, 236, 237.

  102. 102.

    Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvočka and ors IT-98-30/1-A Decision on Zoran Žigić’s Request to Verify Accuracy of Translation (15 October 2002).

  103. 103.

    General Comment 13 (1984) para 13.

  104. 104.

    Article 14 (3) (d) ICCPR.

  105. 105.

    Prosecutor v Théoneste Bagosora and ors ICTR-98-41-T Judgement and Sentence (18 December 2008), para 129.

  106. 106.

    Eades (1995), p. VII.

  107. 107.

    Kunnath v The State (1993) 1 WLR 1315, 1320.

  108. 108.

    Brown-Blake (2006), p. 406.

  109. 109.

    General Comment 32 (90) (2007) para 37.

  110. 110.

    Genocide, War Crimes & Crimes against Humanity: A Digest of the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Human Rights Watch (2004), p. 355.

  111. 111.

    Media Case AC Judgement (28 November 2007), para 246.

  112. 112.

    Rule 22(1) ICC RPE.

  113. 113.

    Rule 45 (C) (i) SCSL RPE.

  114. 114.

    Rule 45(A) ICTR RPE, Article 13 (ii) ICTR Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel.

  115. 115.

    Rule 58 (A) (ii) STL RPE.

  116. 116.

    Floyd (2005), p. 21.

  117. 117.

    Floyd (2005), p. 29.

  118. 118.

    Moss (1959–1960), p. 83.

  119. 119.

    Kostovski v The Netherlands Judgement (20 November 1989) Series A no 166 para 44.

  120. 120.

    Berk-Seligson (1990), p. 23.

  121. 121.

    Berk-Seligson (1990), p. 23.

  122. 122.

    Berk-Seligson (1990), pp. 186–189.

  123. 123.

    Gaiba (1998), p. 102.

  124. 124.

    Gaiba (1998), p. 102.

  125. 125.

    Gaiba (1998), p. 102.

  126. 126.

    Eades (1995), p. 59.

  127. 127.

    Berk-Seligson (1990), p. 23.

  128. 128.

    Gaiba (1998), p. 103.

  129. 129.

    Gaiba (1998), p. 38.

  130. 130.

    Article 14(3) (f) ICCPR.

  131. 131.

    Henrard (2000), p. 86.

  132. 132.

    Alwen Industries Ltd and anor v.Collector of Customs (1996).

  133. 133.

    General Comment 32(90) (2007) para 40.

  134. 134.

    Kunnath v The State (1993) 1 WLR 1315. See also US ex rel. Negrón v New York (1970) 434 F 2d 386 (2nd Cir 1970).

  135. 135.

    Brown-Blake (2006), p. 404.

  136. 136.

    Brown-Blake (2006), p. 402.

  137. 137.

    Article 67(1) (f) ICC Statute.

  138. 138.

    Germain Katanga Judgement on Appeal against ‘Decision on the Defence Request Concerning Languages (27 May 2008) p. 3.

  139. 139.

    Brown-Blake (2006), p. 409.

  140. 140.

    Kamasinski v Austria (19 December 1989) ECHR no 9783/82, 13, EHRR 36 para 74.

  141. 141.

    Article 67(1) (f) ICC Statute.

  142. 142.

    19 December 1989 ECHR no 9783/82, 13, EHRR 36.

  143. 143.

    Meghji Naya v R (1952)19 EACA 247.

  144. 144.

    Mohamed Farah Musa v R [1956] 23 EACA 472.

  145. 145.

    Brown-Blake (2006), pp. 395–397.

  146. 146.

    R v Tran [1994] 2 SCR 951.

  147. 147.

    Brown-Blake (2006), p. 398.

  148. 148.

    Article 14(3) (g) ICCPR.

  149. 149.

    Rule 28 ECCC Internal Rules (Rev 8) 03 August 2011.

  150. 150.

    General Comment 32 (90) (2007) para 41.

  151. 151.

    Karton (2008), p. 3.

  152. 152.

    African [Banjul] Charter on Human & Peoples Rights adopted on 27 June 1981, entered into force on 21 October 1986.

  153. 153.

    Lehman (2005).

  154. 154.

    See Article 7 African Charter.

  155. 155.

    It stipulates that everyone has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent independent and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him.

  156. 156.

    Prosecutor v Duško Tadić Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims & Witnesses (10 August 1995) para 55.

  157. 157.

    Prosecutor v Ljube Boškoski, Johan Tarčulovski Decision on the Motions of Fair Trial and Extensions of Time (19 May 2006), para 13.

  158. 158.

    Prosecutor v Ljube Boškoski, Johan Tarčulovski Decision on the Motions of Fair Trial and Extensions of Time (19 May 2006),7 para 13.

  159. 159.

    Hong Kong Court of First Instance (2002)1 HKC 41 cited Chan, 2005, p. 222.

  160. 160.

    (Right of Canada) Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (1985) 6 WWR 594 cited with approval by Chan (2005), p. 224.

  161. 161.

    See Andersen and Taylor (2008), p. 122. See also Poyatos (1996), p. 111.

  162. 162.

    Andersen and Taylor (2008), p. 123.

  163. 163.

    Andersen and Taylor (2008), p. 123.

  164. 164.

    Andersen and Taylor (2008), p. 123.

  165. 165.

    Andersen and Taylor (2008), p. 123.

Bibliography

Cases Cited

  • Alwen Industries Ltd and Kar Wong v Collector of Customs (1996)3 NZLR 226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza and Hassan Ngeze v The Prosecutor (Media Case) ICTR-99-52-A, Judgement (28 November 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harward v Norway, CCPR Communication (451/1991) (15 July 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v The Prosecutor ICTR-97-19-AR 72, Decision (3 November 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamasinski v Austria 19 December 1989, ECHR, No 9783/82, 13, EHRR 36

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostovski v The Netherlands Application No. 11454/85, Judgement (20 November 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunnath v The State (1993) 1 WLR 1315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meghji Naya v R (1952)19 EACA 247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikaeli Muhimana and ors v The Prosecutor ICTR-95-1B-A, Judgement (21 May 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda v Arizona 348 US 434 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohamed Farah Musa v R (1956)23 EACA at 472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paquette v R (1985) 6 WWR 594 (Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v André Ntagerura and ors ICTR-99-46-T Judgement (25 February 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Casimir Bizimungu ICTR-99-50-I Decision on Motion to Protect Applicant’s Right to Full Answer and Defence (15 November 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Duško Tadić Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses (10 August 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Fatmir Limaj et al IT-03-66-A Decision on Extension of Time (16 February 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Ferdinand Nahimana, Hassan Ngeze and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza ICTR-99-52-T Decision on Motion to Stay Proceedings in the Trial of Nahimana (5 June 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Germain Katanga No. 01/04-01/07(OA3) Judgement on Appeal of Katanga against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber 1 entitled ‘Decision on the Defence Request Concerning Languages’ (27 May 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Ljube Boškoski, Johan Tarčulovski Decision on the Motions of Fair Trial and Extensions of Time (19 May 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Milan Kovačević IT-97-24-AR73, AC Decision (2 July 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Milomir Stakić IT-97-24-A Decision on Motion for Extension of Time (30 October 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvočka and ors IT-98-30/1-A Decision on Žigić’s Motion for Translation of Documents Pertaining to his Appeal (3 October 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvočka and ors IT-98-30/1-A Decision on Žigić’s Request to Verify Accuracy of Translation (15 October 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Paul Bisengimana ICTR-2002-60-I Decision on Bisengimana’s Motion for Complete and Accurate Translation into Working Languages of the Tribunal and Respect for the Rights of the Accused (7 March 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Pavle Strugar IT-01-42-T Decision on Motion to Terminate Proceedings (26 May 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Ratko Mladić IT-09-92-I.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Théoneste Bagosora and ors ICTR-98-41-T Decision on Motion for Reconsideration of the Trial Chamber’s Decision and Scheduling Order of 5 December 2001 (18 July 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Théoneste Bagosora and ors ICTR-98-41-T Judgement and Sentence (18 December 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Tihomir Blaškić IT-95-14-PT Decision on Motion to Dismiss Indictment based upon Defects in the Form thereof (Vagueness/Lack of Adequate Notice of Charges) (4 April 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo ICC-01/04-01/06 Decision on Confirmation of Charges (29 January 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić IT-02-60-T Decision on Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Resolution of the Issue of Blagojević’s Representation (18 June 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Vujadin Popović and ors IT-05-88-PT Decision on Motion seeking the Trial Chamber to order the Registrar to provide the Defence with BCS Transcripts of Proceedings in two past cases (06 March 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Vujadin Popović and ors IT-05-88-PT Decision on Motions Requesting Translation of Pre-Trial Brief and Specific Motions (24 May 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Vojislav Šešelj IT-03-67-PT Order on Translation (6 March 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Zdravko Tolimir and ors IT-04-80-AR73.1 Decision on Radivoje Miletić’s Interlocutory Appeal against the TC’s Decision on Joinder of Accused (27 January 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Tran [1994] 2 S.C.R 951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary (2002)1 HKC 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanislav Galić v The Prosecutor IT-98-29-A Decision on Request for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (22 December 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • US ex rel Negrón v New York 434 F 2d 386 (2nd Cir.1970).

    Google Scholar 

Books and Documents

  • Andersen ML, Taylor HF (2008) Sociology: understanding a diverse society, 4th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Arzoz X (2009) Language rights as legal norms. Eur Public Law 15:554

    Google Scholar 

  • Arzoz X (2007) The nature of language rights. JEMIE paper (Issue No 2/2007) 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk-Seligson S (1990) The bilingual courtroom: court interpreters in the judicial process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard S (2008) An assessment of the ECCC order on translation rights and obligations. Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-CAM)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossuyt MJ (1987) Guide to the Travaux Préparatoires of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Blake C (2006) Fair trial, language and the right to interpretation. Int J Minor Group Right 13:406

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan PCW (2005) Important decisions of Hong Kong Courts in 2002 (Part I): language rights, foreign offenders: sentencing, and immigration and refugee laws. Chinese J Int Law 4:219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotterill J (2000) Reading the rights: a cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility. Forensic Linguistics 7(1):4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Elera A (2005) What place for linguistic diversity, language, equality, and rights in the language arrangements of the European Union? Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 12:271

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFrancia C (2001) Due process in international criminal courts: why procedure matters. Virginia Law Rev 87:1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly SJM (1994) The language and uses of rights: a biopsy of American jurisprudence in the twentieth century. University Press of America, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Eades D (ed) (1995) Language in evidence: issues confronting aboriginal and multicultural Australia. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd J (2005) International injustice Rwanda, genocide and cover-up: the United Nations Media trial. Kabuki Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaiba F (1998) The origins of simultaneous interpretation: the Nuremberg trial. University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner BA (ed) (1999) Black’s law dictionary, 7th edn. West Group, St. Paul, Minn

    Google Scholar 

  • 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) (http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/bb722416a295f264c12563ed0049dfbd?Opendocument)

  • General Comment 32 ‘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 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/437/71/PDF/G0743771.pdf?OpenElement)

  • Genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity: a digest of the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Human Rights Watch (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris D (1967) The right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings as a human right. Int Comp Law Q 16:352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrard K (2000) Language and the administration of justice: the international framework. Int J Minor Group Right 7:75

    Google Scholar 

  • Karton J (2008) Lost in translation: international criminal tribunals and the legal implications of interpreted testimony. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 1:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford I (2009) Fair trial: the history of an idea. J Human Right 8:38

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehman J (ed.) (2005) West’s encyclopedia of American law. Thomson/Gale, Detroit

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss JS (1959–1960) Examination and cross examination of witnesses. South Texas Law J 5:83

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson NS (2009) The law on language in the European Union: policy development for interpreting/translation services in criminal proceedings. Int J Speech Language Law 16(1):59

    Google Scholar 

  • Poyatos F (1996) Non-verbal communication and translation. John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amsterdam/Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Work on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Information Document Prepared by the Secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights DH(56)11 Strasbourg (8 October 1956). (http://www.echr.coe.int/library/DIGDOC/Travaux/ECHRTravaux-ART6-DH(56)11-EN1338886.PDF)

  • Shuy RW, Staton JJ (2000) Review of instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of miranda rights. Forensic Linguistics 131

    Google Scholar 

  • Triffterer O (ed) (2008) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: observers’ notes, article by article. C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Munich

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany

    Catherine S. Namakula

Authors
  1. Catherine S. Namakula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Namakula, C.S. (2014). Language Rights in the Minimum Guarantees of Fair Criminal Trial. In: Language and the Right to Fair Hearing in International Criminal Trials. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01451-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation