ارزیابی تطبیقی حق برخورداری متهمان از مترجم در چارچوب نظام ‏حقوقی ایران و حقوق بین‌الملل ‏

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسنده

گروه حقوق، دانشکدۀ علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران

چکیده

حق بر ترجمۀ شفاهی برای متهمان کیفری که با زبان رسمی دادگاه صحبت نمی‌کنند یا دچار نقض شنوایی هستند در قالب مجموعه‌ای از مقررات، هم در نظام حقوقی ایران و هم در میثاق بین‌المللی حقوق مدنی و سیاسی و اساسنامۀ دادگاه‌های کیفری بین‌المللی تضمین شده است. حال پرسش اصلی این است که آیا متهمان کیفری در چارچوب نظام حقوقی ایران و حقوق بین‌الملل از حق بر ترجمۀ اسناد مکتوب در دادرسی برخوردارند؟ مبانی حقوقی و قضایی این حق در دو نظام حقوقی به چه صورت و از طریق چه سازوکارهایی تضمین می‌شود؟ چالش‌ها و پیامدهای ارزیابی این حق در تحقق تضمین‌های بنیادین دادرسی عادلانه کدام‌اند؟ نگارنده با تتبع در قوانین، اسناد و رویۀ قضایی بر این باور است که دادگاه‌های داخلی و بین‌المللی در خصوص حق بر ترجمه از رویۀ یکسانی پیروی نکرده و مسیر کاملاً متفاوتی را طی نموده‌اند؛ چراکه چالش‌های اجرایی و قضایی متفاوتی در هر دو نظام وجود دارد. محاکم بین‌المللی به بخش‌های مختلف حق دادرسی منصفانه به‌عنوان منشأ حق بر ترجمه اشاره کرده‌اند. همین موضوع سبب شده است در نظام حقوق بین‌الملل با توجه به تجربۀ لازم در رسیدگی به محاکمات چندزبانه، برخلاف نظام حقوقی ایران، ساختاری امیدوار‌کننده برای احقاق حقوق زبانی متهم، اجرای عدالت و مشارکت مؤثر وی در دادرسی‌های کیفری فراهم شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative Assessment of the Accused’s Right to Translation under ‎the Iran’s Legal System and International Law

نویسنده [English]

  • Heidar Piri
Law Department, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, ‎Iran
چکیده [English]

The right to interpretation for accused persons who do not speak or understand the language of criminal proceedings or for persons with hearing and speech deficiencies is guaranteed both in the Iranian legal system and in the ICCPR and the statute of international criminal tribunals. The main question is whether criminal defendants have the right to have documents translated under Iran's legal system and international law documents in the light of Iran's legal system and international law? How is the above right guaranteed in both system, and through what mechanism? What are the challenges and consequences of ensuring this right in the realizing of the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial?  By examining the laws and jurisprudence of both legal systems, the author argues that domestic and international courts have not followed the same procedure regarding the right to translation and have taken completely different approaches due to distinct executive and judicial challenges in each system. International courts have pointed to various parts of the right to a fair trial as the origin of the right to translation. This issue has caused a promising structure to be provided in international legal system for the realization of the language rights of the accused, the implementation of justice and his effective participation in criminal proceedings, due to the necessary experience in dealing with multilingual trials, contrary to Iran’s legal system.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • The Right to Translation
  • ‎Fair Trial
  • The Code of ‎Criminal Procedure
  • ‎ICCPR
  • Iran’s Legal ‎System
  • International ‎‎Legal Order.‎

مراجع

  1. Akpambang, E.M (2007). Safeguards for Fair Trials under Nigerian Constitution and Criminal Procedure Legislations. Ibadan and Abuja: Constellation (Nig.) Publishers.
  2. Al-Tarawneh, Alalddin (2024). The Impact of Legal Translation on Criminal Proceedings, Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 16(3), pp. 793-804. DOI:57239/PJLSS-2024-22.2.00915
  3. Bahrami, Nafisseh (2012). Right of Fair Trial in pre-Trial Investigation in ECHR Practice. Journal of Legal Research, 11(21), pp. 115-132 (In Persain).
  4. Benmaman, V (1992). Legal Interpreting: An Emerging Profession. Modern Language Journal, 76(4), pp. 445-454. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1992.tb05391.x
  5. Birzu, Bogdan (2016). The Right to Interpretation and Translation within Criminal Proceedings in the European Union. Comparative examination, Juridical Tribune, 6(1), pp. 137-147.
  6. Delmas-Marty, Mireille; Spencer, John (2002). European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Hajipour, Ali; Hashemi, Mohammad & Yavari, Asadollah (2018). Comparative Study of the Concept and Necessities of Public Criminal Trial in the Iranian Law and International Standards. Comparative Law Review, 9(1), pp.87-119. DOI:22059/jcl.2017.234812.633501 (In Persain).
  8. Henry, John & Stone, Dingfelder (2018). Court Interpreters and Fair Trials. Germany: Palgrave Macmillan.
  9. Jackson, J & Summers, S (2020). Obstacles to Fairness in Criminal Proceedings: Individual Rights and Institutional Forms. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  10. Khaleghi, Ali (2019). Points in Criminal Procedure Code, Tehran, Shahre Danesh. (in Persain)
  11. Lagoutte, Stéphanie (2005). Fair Trial and Defence Rights in Criminal Matters: An Introduction. Comparative Law Research, 9(20), pp. 159-175.
  12. Levi J. N. et al. (1990). Language in the Judicial Process. New York: Springer.
  13. McEvoy, Gearóidín (2023). Language Proficiency and the Right to an Interpreter when Accessing a Fair Trial. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research, 15(2), pp. 142-156. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.115202.2023.a09
  14. Mole, Naula & Harby, Catharina (2006). The Right to a Fair Trial. Belgium: Council of Europe.
  15. Piri, Heidar (2023). The Effect of Linguistic Diversity and the Right on Translation in the Realization of Fair Trial in International Criminal Proceedings, Criminal Law Doctorines, 20 (25), pp. 93-126. DOI:30513/cld.2023.5332.1868 (in Persain)
  16. Robinson, P (2009). The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law, with Specific Reference to the Work of the ICTY. Berkeley Journal of International Law Publicist, 3, pp. 1-11.
  17. Saber, Mahmoud (2022). Rules of Procedure of the International Criminal Court. Tehran: Dadgostar Publication (In Persain).
  18. Stone, John (2012). Assessing the Existence of the Right to Translation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 16, pp. 159-181. DOI:1163/18757413-90000018
  19. Vogiatzis, Nikos (2022). 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), pp. 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngab027

 

Documents

  1. Charter of the International Military Tribunal (London Agreement), 1945.
  2. Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 1946.
  3. Communication No. 219/1986, D. Guesdon v. France, UN doc. GAOR, A/45/40 (Vol. II).
  4. ECtHR, Cuscani v. UK, Application 32,771/96, 24 September 2002.
  5. ECtHR, Amer v Turkey, Application 25,720/02, 13 January 2009.
  6. ECtHR, Hacioglu v. Romania, App. No. 2573/03 (Judgment of 11 January 2011).
  7. ECtHR, Kamasinski v. Austria, Series A, No. 168, Application No. 9783/82, 19 December 1989.
  8. ECtHR, Luedicke, Belkacem and koc v. Germany, 28 November 1978.
  9. ECtHR, Lagerblom v. Sweden, 14 January 2003.
  10. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950.
  11. HRC, General Comment No. 13 on Article 14 of the ICCPR (Administration of Justice), 1984.
  12. HRC, General Comment No. 32 on ‘Article 14: Right to Equality before the Court and Tribunals and the Right to a Fair Trial’, CCPR/C/GC/32, 2007.
  13. Hermi v. Italy, Application No. 18114/02 of 18 October 2006.
  14. HRC, Harward v. Norway, Communication No. 451/1991, Doc. CCPR/C/51/451/1991 of 16 August 1994.
  15. HRC, Hervé Barzhig v. France, 11 April 1991, Communication No. 327/1988.
  16. ICC, Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR 95-1A, Judgement, 12 July 3, 2002.
  17. ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07(OA3), 2008.
  18. ICC, Prosecutor v. Kony, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/05, 2007.
  19. ICC, Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR 96-3-A, Judgement, 21 May 26, 2003.
  20. ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-268, Pre-Trial Chamber I,2006.
  21. ICTR, Prosecutor v. Mubimana, Case No. ICTR-95-1B, Trial Chamber, 6 November 2001.
  22. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Delalic, Trial Chamber, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 1996.
  23. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Case No. IT-96-23 & 23/1, Judgement, 2002.
  24. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kupreskid, Case No. IT-95-16-A, Appeals Judgement, 2001.
  25. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Naletilic, Case No. IT-98-34-A, 2001.
  26. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Prlic, IT-04-74-PT, 2006.
  27. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Seselj, IT-03-67-PT, 2003.
  28. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
  29. Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, 2004.
  30. Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court, Sep. 10, 2002, ICCASP/1/3.
  31. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 1994.
  32. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 1993.
  33. Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2000.
  34. Statute of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, 2007.
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی

مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 01 تیر 1404

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار