As we have seen, interpreting is essential in a number of areas. But it is particularly important in the case of court interpreting where so much depends on what people say and whether they are perceived to be telling the truth. There have been miscarriages of justice in cases where no foreign language was involved. There is greater potential for miscarriages of justice when untrained, unqualified interpreters are at work. According to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950:

Article 6. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

To be informed promptly, in a language he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

To defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

To examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendanceand examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

In 1988 an American citizen called Theodore Kamasinski took a case against Austria under Articles, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The case was taken on a number of grounds but one issue was interpreting. Mr Kamasinski claimed that the process of accreditation for court interpreters in Austria was inadequate. He also alleged that some court testimony was not interpreted for him and that he did not receive written translations of court documents. The Court agreed that important court documentation should be translated. It decided that it could not make a blanket judgement concerning accreditation because it is not specifically mentioned in the Convention. However, it did say:

In view of the need for the right guaranteed by paragraph 3e (article 6-3-e) to be practical and effective, the obligation of the competent authorities is not limited to the appointment of an interpreter but, if they are put on notice in the particular circumstances, may also extend to a degree of subsequent control over the adequacy of the interpretation provided.

In its judgement the Court rejected most of Mr Kamasinski's grounds of complaint. However, the case itself was useful in that the issues were aired in court. Clearly, the right to an interpreter is not the same as the right to a trained and qualified interpreter. The full text of the proceedings in Kamasinski vs. Austria is available on the European Court of

Human Rights.