The Right to Translation in Iranian Criminal Law; Analyzing Challenges from Legislation to Enforcement

Document Type : scientific

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.

Abstract

Judicial dialogue is conducted as the articulation of legal disputes in Iranian criminal proceedings in the official language (Persian). To uphold the judicial principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), when the accused speaks another language and does not understand the language of the proceedings, or has hearing or speech impairments, the dialogue must be reconstructed/recreated with the assistance of an interpreter. The primary question is how and through what mechanisms the right to translation are ensured and protected in Iran's criminal justice system. To what extent has judicial practice supported this procedural right? Ultimately, what are the practical obstacles and challenges of this right? A set of legal regulations and judicial practices has restricted the right to translation to oral communications for linguistic minorities with disabilities in criminal proceedings, neglecting written communications. This approach not only violates adversarial principle (the principle of equality of arms; contradiction principle) but by creating an informational gap, it marginalizes the defendant’s right to an effective defense. Relying on the Islamic jurisprudential principle of elimination of hardship and harm and the rational maxim of the legal interpretation in favor of the accused, the author argues that the translation of such documents—when directly related to the charges—must be guaranteed as a matter of legal necessity, this is not a mere privilege, but an obligation of the judiciary and a decisive factor in ensuring the defendant’s right to a truly fair trial. The presence of an interpreter safeguards the rights of the accused and ensures this effective participation in the trial, as well as the proper administration of justice. However, due to practical, procedural, legal, and judicial challenges, mere recognition of this necessity does not always result the linguistic justice.

Keywords

References

  1. بروجردی عبده، محمد. (1381ش). اصول قضائی (جزائی) دیوان عالی کشور. تهران: رهام.
  2. پیری، حیدر. (1402ش). تأثیر تنوع زبانی و حق بر ترجمه در تحقق دادرسی عادلانه در دادرسی‌های کیفری بین‌المللی. آموزه‌های حقوق کیفری، 20(25)، 93-126. https://doi.org/10.30513/cld.2023.5332.1868
  3. خالقی، علی. (1403ش). نکته‌ها در قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری. تهران: شهر دانش.
  4. جعفری دهقی، محمود؛ خلیلی‌پور، نازنین؛ جعفری دهقی، شیما. (1393ش). زبان‌ها و گویش‌های ایرانی (گذشته و حال). تهران: مرکز دایرةالمعارف بزرگ اسلامی.
  5. دیبانژاد، محسن؛ شایسته، یعقوب. (1402ش). قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری در نظم حقوقی کنونی. تهران: مجد.
  6. راسخ، متین؛ حبیب، پروین؛ کریم، حبیب. (1400ش). شرح آیین دادرسی کیفری (مواد 335 تا 425). تهران: انتشارات فرهنگ کلام و گفتمان.
  7. رحیمی‌نژاد، اسماعیل. (1387ش). کرامت انسانی در حقوق کیفری. تهران: نشر میزان.
  8. سبهانی، ثریا؛ گرجیان، بهمن؛ محمودی، خلیل؛ ویسی، الخاص. (1401ش). شناسایی هویت نوشتاری و گفتاری متهمان در دادگاه از منظر زبان‌شناسی حقوقی. پژوهش‌های حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، 10(20)، 289-316. https://doi.org/10.22034/jclc.2023.329574.1652
  9. قائمی‌خرق، محسن؛ آقایی‌نژاد، سمیه؛ ارژنگ، اردوان. (1403ش). حق بر داشتن مترجم در دادرسی‌ها‌ و تضمینات فقه‌پایۀ آن. پژوهش‌های فقهی، 21(1)، 1-14. https://doi.org/10.22059/jorr.2024.380982.1009499
  10. صابر، محمود. (1388ش). معیارها و تضمین‌های دادرسی عادلانه در مرحلۀ تحقیقات. پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، 13(4)، 143-175.
  11. طهماسبی، جواد. (1402ش). آیین دادرسی کیفری، (جلد دوم: تحقیقات مقدماتی). تهران: میزان.
  12. لطیفی، حسین. (1399ش). تحلیلی بر اصل تساوی سلاح‌ها در حقوق کیفری ایران و آمریکا. دانش حقوق و مالیه، 3(11)، 92-103. https://malieh.dmk.ir/article-1-152-fa.html
  13. میرمحمدصادقی، حسین. (1388ش). پلورالیسم حقوقی. آموزه‌های حقوق کیفری، 6(12)، 3-14.
  14. وهبی، زهرا؛ قربان‌زاده، محمد. (1402ش). جایگاه ترجمۀ دادگاهی در ایران و ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا. تمدن حقوقی، 6(15)، 381-391. https://doi.org/22034/lc.2023.396455.1340
  15. Dijk, P.Van; G. J. H. Van Hoof. (1998). Theory and Practice of The European Convention on Human Rights. London: SIM.
  16. Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. USA: Hackle Publishing Company.
  17. Garre, M. (1999). Human Rights in Translation: Legal Concepts in Different Languages. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
  18. Gentile, A; Ozolins, U; Vasilakakos, M. (1996). Liaison Interpreting: a Hand Book. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
  19. Henry, John; Stone, Dingfelder. (2018). Court Interpreters and Fair Trials. Germany: Palgrave Macmillan.
  20. Hewitt, William E. (1995). Court Interpretation: Model Guides for Policy and Practice in the State Courts. National Center for State Courts.
  21. N. Levi et al. (eds.). (1990). Language in the Judicial Process. New York: Springer.
  22. Kibbee, D.A (ed.). (1998). Legal and Linguistic Perspectives on Language Legislation. Amsterdam: Benjamin Publishers.
  23. Pejic, Jelena & Lesnie, Vanessa. (2000). What is a Fair Trial? A Basic Guide to Legal Standards and Practice. New York: Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
  24. What Is a Fair Trial (A Basic Guide to Legal Standards and
  25. Practice), 2nd Ed, New York: Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, 2000
  26. Delmas-Marty, Mireille & Spencer, J.R.. (2002). European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge University
  27. Namakula, Catherine S. (2014). Language and the Right to Fair Hearing in International Criminal Trials. Switzerland: Springer.
  28. Bacik, I.(2007). Breaking the Language Barrier: Access to Justice in the New Ireland. Judicial Studies Institute Journal, Vol.2. 109-123.
  29. Birzu, B. (2016). The Right to Interpretation and Translation within Criminal Proceedings in the European Union. Comparative examination, Juridical Tribune, 6(1), 137-147.
  30. Evert-Jan van der Vlis. (2010). The Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings. The Journal of Specialized Translation, Issue.14.
  31. O’Donnell, G. (2004). The Quality of Democracy:Why the Rule of Law Matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32-46. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0076
  32. Vogiatzis, N. (). Interpreting the Right to Interpretation under Article 6(3)(e) ECHR: A Cautious Evolution in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights? Human Rights Law Review, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngab027
  33. Waldron, J. (2011). The Rule of 2022Law and the Importance of Procedure. NYU School of Law Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper, No.10–73. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1688491

Documents & Cases

  1. ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07(OA3), 2008.
  2. CERD, General Recommendation No. 31 (2005):The prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system.
  3. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 6 (2018):On equality and non-discrimination.
  4. Communication No. 219/1986, D. Guesdon v. France (Views adopted on 25 July 1990), in UN doc. GAOR, A/45/40 (Vol.II).
  5. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).
  6. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
  7. ECtHR, Hacioglu v. Romania, App. no. 2573/03 (Judgment of 11 January 2011).
  8. ECtHR, Luedicke, Belkacem and koc v. Germany, 28 November 1978.
  9. Court HR, Case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç, judgment of 28 November 1978, Series A, No.29.
  10. General Comment No. 13 (Article 14), in United Nations Compilation of General Comments.
  11. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 24 (2019).
  12. General Comment No.32 on ‘Article 14: ‘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.
  13. Hervé Barzhig v. France, 11 April 1991, HRC, Communication No. 327/1988.
  14. HRC, Harward v. Norway, Communication No.451/1991, Doc. CCPR/C/51/451/1991 of 16 August 1994.
  15. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Delalic, Trial Chamber, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 1996.
  16. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Seselj, IT-03-67-PT, 2003.
  17. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965).
  18. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, opened for signature 16 December 1966.
  19. Irish Translators and Interpreters’ Association (ITIA), Assuring Cultural Competence in Health Care: Recommendations for National Standards and an Outcomes-Focused Research Agenda (US Office of Minority Health 1999).
  20. Roadmap Practitioner Tools: Interpretation and Translation Directive, Co-funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Commission, 2015.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics