1) Member States shall ensure that victims who do not understand or speak the language of the criminal proceedings concerned are provided, upon request, with interpretation in accordance with their role in the relevant criminal justice system in criminal proceedings interpretation, free of charge, at least during any interviews or questioning of the victim during criminal proceedings before investigative and judicial authorities, including during police questioning, and interpretation for their active participation in court hearings and any necessary interim hearings.

2) Without prejudice to the rights of the defence and in accordance with rules of judicial discretion, communication technology such as videoconferencing, telephone or internet may be used, unless the physical presence of the interpreter is required in order for the victims to properly exercise their rights or to understand the proceedings.

3) Member States shall ensure that victims who do not understand or speak the language of the criminal proceedings concerned are provided, in accordance with their role in the relevant criminal justice system in criminal proceedings, upon request, withtranslations of information essential to the exercise of their rights in criminal proceedings in a language that they understand, free of charge, to the extent that such information is made available to the victims. Translations of such information shall include at least any decision ending the criminal proceedings related to the criminal offence suffered by the victim, and upon the victim’s request, reasons or a brief summary of reasons for such decision, except in the case of a jury decision or a decision where the reasons are confidential in which cases the reasons are not provided as a matter of national law.

4) Translation and interpretation of information that are not essential to the exercise of victims’ participation rights in proceedings, may be provided by alternative means including unofficial translators and interpreters and technological tools. Member States shall establish common standards to guide the provision and use of unofficial translation services.

5) Member States shall ensure that victims who are entitled to about the time and place of the trial in accordance with Article 6(1)(b) and who do not understand the language of the competent authority, are provided with a translation of information relating to the time and place of the trial in accordance with Article 6(1)(b)to which they are entitled, upon request.

6) Victims may submit a reasoned request to consider a document as essential. There shall be no requirement to translate passages of essential documents which are not relevant for the purpose of enabling victims to actively participate in the criminal proceedings.

7) Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 3, an oral translation or oral summary of essential documents may be exceptionally provided instead of a written translation on condition that such oral translation or oral summary does not prejudice the fairness of the proceedings, the ability of victims to participate in proceedings or the ability to enjoy their rights.

8) Member States shall ensure that the competent authority assesses whether victims need interpretation or translation as provided for under paragraphs 1 and 3. Victims may challenge a decision not to provide interpretation or translation. The procedural rules for such a challenge shall be determined by national law. Where victims indicate language difficulties or where they are non-nationals, it shall be presumed they need interpretation or translation, unless there are clear indications to the contrary.

9) Interpretation and translation and any consideration of a challenge of a decision not to provide interpretation or translation under this Article shall not unreasonably prolong the criminal proceedings.

The Commission did not propose an amendment to the right to interpretation and translation; however, numerous reports demonstrate that victims are often unable to access such services despite needing them. When interpreters are available, the quality of interpretation provided cannot always be guaranteed. A lack of knowledge in working with victims can cause secondary victimisation as interpreters do not always fulfil, and respect, victims’ needs or vulnerabilities[1]. At the same time, it is recognised that interpretation and translation services are difficult to organise and are expensive to provide.

To achieve a balance between a victim’s right to understand proceedings and potential costs, VSE proposes a two-tier system. Victims should be able to receive interpretation and translation from qualified persons at key moments and for essential information e.g. reporting the crime. Notably, victims should not have to request this service, it must simply be provided to them where they indicate they do not understand the language or where it is clear they don’t. The act of asking for this service acts as a barrier to its access. In other instances, the services should be accessible but may be provided in an informal manner or via technology.

Access to interpretation and translation services should be facilitated for all victims who are non-nationals of the country or who indicate language difficulties, based on the presumption they require access to such services, unless it is apparent that the victim does not need access to these services. This will encourage the implementation of more proactive behaviours by authorities, and overcome barriers for victims seeking help. At the same time, the approach will alleviate fears of competent authorities with regard to requests for access to interpretation and translation services of victims who are non-nationals and who clearly do not need such services.

[1] VOCIARE Synthesis report, Victim Support Europe and partners, 2019, available at: https://victim-support.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/VOCIARE_Synthesis_Report.pdf