Language rights in the minimum guarantees of fair criminal trial

Authors

  • Catherine S. Namakula University of the Witwatersrand Max Planck Institute for Foreign & International Criminal Law

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v19i1.73

Keywords:

language, fair criminal trial

Abstract

The linguistic dynamics of a multilingual trial are significant determinants of fair hearing. By analysing the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals, on language and fair trial, this article attempts to situate language guarantees in the framework of the fundamental right to fair trial. If successful, this could raise the profile of the entire debate on language in international criminal trials, and hopefully instigate reform. Notably, the effective participation of a person in his/her trial is a function of language. From the information of charges, through the process of defence, examining witnesses and interpreting the evidence, language is a significant handmaid. Specifically, translation, as an indispensable component of a multilingual trial, enhances the relevance of linguistic forces to the realisation of a fair criminal trial.

Author Biography

  • Catherine S. Namakula, University of the Witwatersrand Max Planck Institute for Foreign & International Criminal Law
    Currently an Alistair Berkely Scholar at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, and a Researcher with the Max Planck Institute for Foreign & International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Catherine S Namakula was a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law, Heidelberg at the time of writing this Article. She has previously worked with Africa Legal Aid, The International Criminal Court, The Hague, The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and Makerere University Human Rights and Peace Centre.

Published

2012-06-22

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Namakula, C. S. (2012). Language rights in the minimum guarantees of fair criminal trial. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 19(1), 73-93. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v19i1.73