In Canada, we have trials in English, or in French, or bilingually.
What other countries are Dopers aware of that have trials in more than one language?
Bilingual or multi-lingual statutes?
I’d assume that Switzerland holds trials in 3 or 4 languages, though I don’t have a cite.
I know in Ireland you have the right to deal with the government in Irish, but I don’t know if you could insist your trail be in Irish.
In Wales, there’s simultaneous translation so that, in effect, trials are conducted in both languages.
In Germany Sorbs (an autochthonous Slavic-language minority) have the right to speak their language in courts within the districts where they are a significant minority. That right would only be relevant in civil trials (in criminal trials the state would already be obliged to provide interpreters for defendants and witnesses who do not have a good command of German).
Obviously, a prerequisite would be that there were a sufficient number of judges, lawyers, jurors and court officials who were fluent in that language.
I think in Israel, you can file court papers in Arabic, but proceedings are in Hebrew.
Pakistan, the Court language is determind by the provincial High Courts.
All Federal, superior Appellate and Supreme Court is in English. As are serious Criminal Trials, (as Criminal law is a federal matter).
Why couldn’t they use translators & interpreters?
I’m not so sure that providing interpreters qualifies as conducting a trial in both languages. I mean, nobody considers a trial to be conducted in five languages when the records are kept in English , the judges and lawyers and court personnel all use English and the defendant and some witnesses do not speak English and speak four non-English languages between them. And if that counts, then the US conducts trials in multiple languages.
Finland has trials in Finnish, Swedish or Sami language (subject to elaborate language laws and rules).
In India, there are officially 22 recognized languages. I am not a lawyer but most lower level courts (e.g. district courts) use the local language (one of the 22 above).
The high courts use a handful of languages - maybe like 3 while the Supreme Court only uses English.
In Spain, trials are conducted in Spanish; court records are in Spanish. If someone doesn’t speak Spanish, translators are provided. The translators may work “continuously” (in both directions during the whole conversation) or “at will”; imagine a person who understands Spanish well but doesn’t speak it well, for example; the translator will interpret what they say and can also be requested by that person to clarify something they aren’t sure they understood. Thing is, while we have four official (verbal) languages, three of them are CO-official: every healthy adult Spaniard is supposed to be able to speak and/or write in Spanish (someone whose primary language is signed will not be expected to work in writing, they’ll get an interpreter).
A frequent delaying tactic of those members of ETA who spoke enough Basque (which was by no means all of them) was to refuse to testify in Spanish, then question the validity of the translations provided. For the current trials regarding the Catexit referendum and its surrounding mess, some people who’ve requested it will be allowed to testify in Catalan; at will interpreters will be provided. Simultaneous interpretation (people in a cabin) was considered but has been discarded. Catalan and Spanish are similar enough that most of the testimony should be understandable even for those members of the Court who don’t speak it.
Yes , you can insist your trail is in Irish .
Also when determining the meaning of the constitution the Irish version is the supreme version
It’s not just the Government that you can deal with in Irish it’s also any state owned business like the Post Office .
A right to have a trial ‘conducted’ in one’s own language maps pretty closely I think with that language being considered one of the ‘official’ languages of the country, a core component of ‘official language’.
Subject to exceptions, and to practicalities like providing enough judicial personnel who speak minority languages, and then also whether we’re counting it as ‘conducting the trial in X language’ if it’s via interpreters rather than the judge and lawyers speaking the language directly.
In China non-Chinese speaking minorities have a theoretical right to a trial conducted in their language. The Autonomous administrative divisions are also allowed to conduct administrative and judicial proceedings in the local ethnic language (eg. Korean in the Yanbian Autonomous Prefecture). However you can read up on how this is an imperfect system in practice including the estimated 30% of Han Chinese who can’t effectively speak/understand Putonghua (‘Mandarin’), who far outnumber non-Han ethnic minorities. In some cases apparently trials have been conducted in Putonghua, interpreters provided to translate what defendants say in other Chinese dialects so the judge can understand them, but it’s assumed the defendants can understand Putonghua, even if not make themselves understood, so no translation in the other direction. Other cases have noted how not even interpreters were always provided in Tibet (non-Chinese local language) but it’s said that now more judges there speak Tibetan and don’t need translators.
As others stated, in the limit it’s the same as say the US where a person can have an interpreter. If the interpreter is skilled enough and allowed to interpret in both directions, it would seem not necessarily inferior to a trial conducted by judges and lawyers speaking what’s to them a foreign language.
Not trials but I used to conduct hearings where I worked. If the inmate didn’t speak English, we would provide a translator and everything would be translated back and forth. Because the hearing couldn’t be conducted in Spanish or some language other than English even if everyone involved spoke that other language.
I agree with Doreen and Corry El’s comments.
There’s a difference between needing an interpreter because you don’t understand the language of proceedings, and a right to a trial in one’s own language.
The right to an interpreter is necessary for a fair trial, to ensure you know the case to meet, the evidence being called, the judge’s rulings, and so on.
The right to a trial in one’s own language is a different right, based on the political structure of the jurisdiction. For instance, if I’m appearing in Federal Court in Canada, I have the constitutional right to speak English, even if all the other participants and the judge are speaking French, and vice versa for someone who wants to speak French even if everyone else is speaking English.
Interesting that in both Pakistan and India the courts operate in English. Is that because there are so many local languages that English is an acceptable lingua franca?
I was just suggesting that perhaps not every single participant in the trial needs to speak the language it’s conducted in. If you can’t find enough jurors that speak the language, does that mean there’s no valid way to hold a trial in that language?
Of course every single participant does not have to speak/understand the language the trial is conducted in - defendants and witnesses may require the use of an interpreter. But that’s a different issue - trials are generally conducted in an official language or a common language and “the language the trial is being conducted in” is sort of defined by the language lawyers and court personnel (including jurors) speak. In Canada, both French and English are official languages , and I suspect that there are a sufficient number of bilingual court personnel/lawyers/potential jurors throughout Canada that it is not a problem ( Northern Piper can correct me if I’m wrong)
It can be an issue because bilingualism is not equally distributed. Large chunks of anglo-Canada is primarily Anglophone only, and large chunks of Quebec are Francophone only.