103. This Court has held in Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania that
every accused person has the right to an interpreter which is an aspect of
fair trial under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter read jointly with Article 14(3)(a)
of the ICCPR.37 The Court has also held that in cases where the accused
cannot understand or speak the language that is being used in court, he or
she is entitled to an interpreter. Further, if the accused person is
represented
by
counsel,
the
need
for
interpretation
should
be
communicated to the court.38
104. The same purpose is inherent in the Criminal Procedure Act of the
Respondent State. Section 211(1) of the said Act provides that “whenever
any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and
he is present in person, it shall be interpreted to him in open court in a
language understood by him."
105. It follows that the right to an interpreter, as it arises from these provisions,
is not necessarily for an accused person to be provided interpretation in his
own language but rather in any language that he understands. There lies
the rationale of this Court’s conclusion in Guehi v. Tanzania that the
purpose of ensuring that the accused person understands the language
used by the trial court is to be aware of the charges brought against him
and participate in the proceedings without necessarily having a full mastery
of the language used.39
106. In the instant case, it emerges from the record that, as at the time of his
arrest in 2004, the Applicant had been residing in Tanzania for ten (10)
years after he arrived from Burundi as a refugee. The record also shows
that upon his arrest, the Applicant was taken into police custody where he
gave his statement, which he asserts was prepared by the police officer in
37
Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 73.
Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 128 and Yahaya Zumo Makame v. United
Republic of Tanzania ACtHPR, Application No. 023/2016, Judgment of 25 June 2021 (merits and
reparations), § 93.
39 Guehi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 73-79. See also, Husain v. Italy, ECHR, Application 18913/03,
Judgment of 24 February 2005.
38
29