72. The Respondent State avers that an interpreter was not required during the committal
proceedings or during the preliminary hearing because they were conducted in
English, which the Applicant never indicated he did not understand. The Respondent
State submits that, during the committal proceedings, the accused person is' not
required to make a plea but the charges are only read over and explained to him.
The Respondent State stresses that the actual plea is made during the preliminary
hearing and that, in the instant case, the record of proceedings shows on pages 1
and 2 that the Applicant's lawyer was then present, the charge of murder was read
over, and he pleaded guilty without raising any issue to the court. The Respondent
State adds that documents of the hearing were served on the Applicant and his
Counsel who accepted some and rejected others, did not raise any issue with the
conditions in which the statement was given, and even signed the memorandum of
undisputed facts. In its oral submissions, the Respondent State reiterated and
elaborated the same arguments advanced in the written pleadings.
•**
73. The Court notes that, even though Article 7(1 )(c) of the Charter referred to earlier
does not expressly provide for the right to be assisted by an interpreter, it may be
interpreted in the light of Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR, which provides that "...
everyone shall be entitled to ... (a) be promptly informed and in detail in a language which
he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; and (f) to have the free
assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court". It
is evident from a joint reading of the two provisions that every accused person has
the right to an interpreter.
74. The Respondent State does not dispute the fact that the Applicant was not assisted
by an interpreter during the police interview and committal proceedings which were
both conducted in English. The fact being disputed is whether the Applicant
understood English at the time of these processes and if the fact that he was not
provided an interpreter affected his right to a fair trial at the above mentioned stages
of the process.
20