Article 7 – Right to interpretation and translation

Article 7 – Right to interpretation and translation

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.

COMMENTARY – Article 7

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

Key Problems

1) Lack of availability of interpreters and translators

  • In some Member States, it is particularly difficult to guarantee that interpretation and translation services are provided equally across the country, and especially in rural and sparsely populated regions.  
  • When interpreters and translators are available overall, there are gaps in the availability of professionals who can appropriately respond to victim’s specific needs (e.g. depending on their cultural background and specific vulnerabilities). This can create risks of secondary victimisation for victims.  
  • In several Member States there is also a considerable lack, or total absence, of specialised interpreters and translators, i.e. professionals who have not only linguistic knowledge and training but also in-depth understanding of the legal system and the ability to quickly adapt to both formal and informal speech. 
  • The lack of qualified and licensed interpreters and translators is one of the major problems in ensuring this right. 
  • Even in cases where interpretation/translation services are available, the resort to them decreases as the criminal proceedings advance.

2) Lack of formal procedures to assess victims’ communication needs  

Another chief shortcoming in the majority of the Member States is the fact that there are no formal procedures for the assessment of victims’ communication needs. To determine the victims’ linguistic assistance needs, the competent authorities usually perform a rather informal and intuitive assessment which often times results in false assumptions that the victim sufficiently understands the language of the proceedings and in the subsequent denial of interpretation and translation. 

3) Lack of state funding  

  • Payments to interpreters or translations are, in several instances, considered either insufficient or not processed timely.  
  • In some cases, this lack of funding results in the assigned interpreter being the same for both the victim and the perpetrator. This is seen as jeopardising the translator’s neutrality and risking the occurrence of conflicts of interest. Certainly, it may risk the loss of confidence the victim has in the interpreter.

4) Lack of training for criminal justice system professionals  

The final common difficulty identified among different Member States is the lack of training for the different professionals of the criminal justice system in how to work with interpreters and translators and a lack of training of translators and interpreters to sensitise them regarding needs of victims. 

Data on the Implementation of Right

Access to translation services decreases as the criminal proceedings advance 

The professionals inquired in the study indicated that even in cases where interpretation and translation services where available, the resort to them decreases as the criminal proceedings advance.  

Only 19% of respondents answered that interpretation services were available during the entire trial.  

Availability of interpretation and translation  

In 29% of cases victims have access to translation during police interviews.  

In 20% of cases victims have access to translation during investigations.  

In 17% of cases victims have access to translation before the prosecutor.  

In 21% of cases victims have access to translation services during the entire trial.  

In 10% of cases victims have access only during their testimony.  

In 3% of cases access to interpretation and translation is not available at all. 

 Challenges in the application of the right to interpretation and translation  

Denial of the right to interpreting services – 7,5% 

Lack of availability of interpreters – 29,5%  

Poor quality of interpretation – 8,8%  

Interpreting services available only under limited circumstances (conditional to active participation) – 11% 

Interpreting services do not address victims’ vulnerability (e.g. woman victim of sexual violence with interpretation services by a male interpreter) – 12,1 % 

Risk of interpreter bias – 8,7% 

Interpreting services are available but not free of charge – 3,7% 

Interpreting services are provided in a language other than the victim’s own language – 5,5% 

False assumption that victims understand the language of the proceedings well enough – 7,8% 

Interpreting services are not provided to avoid delays in proceedings – 3,4% 

(Source: VOCIARE Synthesis Report, Victim Support Europe, 2019

Best Practices of Member States

Finland: national register of interpreters

In 2016 the Finnish National Agency for Education established the Register of Legal Interpreters. It aims at helping people in Finland, including victims, find an interpreter who is sufficiently qualified to act as an interpreter in legal matters.  

The register has currently 42 interpreters for 12 languages. To address the increased need for competent interpreters, some Finnish universities and other educational institutions have developed, in cooperation with the Finnish National Agency for Education, training programs on legal interpreting. In 2015, a specialised vocational certificate in legal interpretation which is not tied to any languages was added into the Finnish education system. 

Romania: Right to interpretation and translation  

Generally provided throughout criminal proceedings to victims who do not speak or understand Romanian with the help of certified interpreters and translators. These interpreters are registered with the Ministry of Justice and their contact information is available on the Ministry’s website, making it easier for judiciary authorities to have them attend court sessions. In cases where the victim speaks a language for which it is difficult to provide a certified interpreter, qualitative research has shown that sometimes court officials contact the victim’s Embassy or Consulate, who may provide translation. 

Sweden: Right to interpretation and translation 

All respondent’s highlight Sweden´s continued efforts and success regarding the provision of interpretation and translation, to ensure that all victims of crime are able to understand and make themselves understood throughout the criminal justice process, as well as in contact with support services including both NGOs and Social Services.  

Interpretation and translations are provided to victims of crime, free of charge, during their contacts with agencies such as the Police, Prosecution, Court and Social Services. This helps to implement other rights such as the right to information, the right to understand and to be understood, right to support as well as the ability for the victim to engage and participate fully in the criminal justice process regarding their case.