Page 45 - Bollettino I Semestre 2019

process, in that it is from the moment of its service that the defendant is formally put on notice of the factual and
legal basis of the charges against him. A defendant not familiar with the language used by the court may be at a
practical disadvantage if the indictment is not translated into a language which he understands (see Hermi v.
Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 68, ECHR 2006‑ XII).

76. In addition, paragraph 3 (e) of Article 6 states that every defendant has the right to the free assistance of an
interpreter. That right applies not only to oral statements made at the trial hearing but also to documentary
material and the pre-trial proceedings (see Hermi, cited above, § 69). As regards the pre-trial phase, the Court
notes that the assistance of an interpreter, as that of a lawyer, should be provided from the investigation stage,
unless it is demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right (see Baytar, cited above, § 50,
and Diallo v. Sweden (dec.), no. 13205/07, § 25, 5 January 2010).

77. An accused who cannot understand or speak the language used in court has, therefore, the right to the free
assistance of an interpreter for the translation or interpretation of all those documents or statements in the
proceedings instituted against him which it is necessary for him to understand or to have rendered into the court’s
language in order to have the benefit of a fair trial (see Hermi, cited above, § 69).

78. However, paragraph 3 (e) does not go so far as to require a written translation of all items of written evidence
or official documents in the procedure. In that connection, it should be noted that the text of the relevant
provisions refers to an “interpreter”, not a “translator”. This suggests that oral linguistic assistance may satisfy
the requirements of the Convention (see Husain v. Italy (dec.), no. 18913/03, 24 February 2005).

79. The fact remains, however, that the interpretation assistance provided should be such as to enable the
defendant to have knowledge of the case against him and to defend himself, notably by being able to put before
the court his version of the events (see ibid.; Hermi, cited above, § 70; and Güngör v. Germany (dec.), no.
31540/96, 17 May 2001). The Court notes in this connection that the obligation of the competent authorities is
not limited to the appointment of an interpreter but, if they are put on notice in the particular circumstances,
may also extend to a degree of subsequent control over the adequacy of the interpretation (see Kamasinski v.
Austria, 19 December 1989, § 74, Series A no. 168), and Diallo, cited above, § 23).

Ciò premesso, la Corte di Strasburgo ha ribadito che l’interprete deve fornire un effettivo ausilio
all’accusato ai fini dell’esercizio del diritto di difesa, ma il suo comportamento non deve mettere
a repentaglio l’equità del processo.

Nel caso in esame, al contrario, l’interprete nominata aveva indebitamente inteso tessere una
relazione umana ed emotiva con la ricorrente, auto-attribuendosi un ruolo di mediazione con le
Autorità procedenti, assumendo un ruolo in un certo senso materno, che certamente non le era
richiesto.

Tuttavia, pur avendo la ricorrente posto questi motivi di gravame all’attenzione delle Autorità,
nessuna procedura volta ad accertare il fondamento o meno delle sue allegazioni, ed in
particolare se il comportamento tenuto in concreto dall’interprete avesse avuto un impatto sul

procedimento in corso, pregiudicandone l’equità.

Indice

37