witnesses, counsel, assessors and the judge. It is therefore an essential
part of judicial proceedings.
80. The First Applicant avers that he instructed his counsel to make provision
for an interpreter prior to the original proceedings but the trial courts rejected
the request on the grounds that it would cause confusion. He also avers that
the Court acknowledged his request for an interpreter but failed to arrange
for one.29
81. The Second Applicant avers that during his arrest the terminology used
required a high level of fluency, far beyond the basic transactional Kiswahili
that he had mastered in the refugee camp. He, therefore, struggled to
understand the police interrogations and the proceedings. He adds that
during the “Trial within a trial proceeding” he was asked whether he spoke
Kiswahili to which, he informed the Court that he did not speak it properly
and was a refugee from Burundi. The second Applicant further avers that
by the time his case went to trial, seven years after his arrest, he had learned
to speak Kiswahili fluently in prison and did not hide his fluency at the time
of his trial, which unfortunately, worked against his interest. He argues that
the Court, in Armand Guehi case, also recognised the significance of the
right to an interpreter during the interrogation phase. He draws from various
jurisprudence to support his arguments.30
*
82. The Respondent State disputes this allegation and puts the Applicants to
the strict proof thereof. It avers that the trial was conducted in both English
and Swahili languages to enable the Applicants and court assessors to
29
Applicants’ submission pursuant to Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018), § 78;
Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116, doc. 5 rev. 1 corr.
(2002), at 400; John Murray v. United Kingdom ECtHR, App. No. 18731/91, (1996), §§ 45, 47-58; HRC
Concluding Observations; France, UN Doc. CCPR/C/FRA/CO/4 (2008) § 14; N(6)(d)(ii) of the Principles
on Fair Trial in African, Article 55(2)(b) of the ICC Statute, Rule 42(A)(iii) of the Rwanda Rules, Rule
42(A)(iii) of the Yugoslavia Rules; Amnesty International Fair Trial Manual, ed. 2, 83); Singarasa v. Sri
Lanka, UN Doc, CCPR/C.81/D/1033/2001 (H.R.C. 2004), § 7.2; Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, ICC01/04-01/07, Judgement, § 3 (27 May, 2008).
30
24