Statement | Civil Society Press Conference Following the ICERD Initial State Report Review

Since 2006, Taiwan has primarily relied on the contracted interpreter system to handle judicial cases involving migrant workers, new immigrants, and indigenous peoples. This is based on Article 97 of the Court Organization Act, which stipulates that the national language shall be used in court trials. However, with the passage of the Indigenous Peoples Languages Development Act in 2017 and the National Languages Development Act in 2018, the definition of the national language should not be limited to Chinese; instead, we should consider how Taiwan's judicial system can accommodate Taiwan's indigenous languages.

Our contracted interpreter system must also be thoroughly reviewed. The Judicial Yuan has only assigned 30 interpreters and covers merely 11 indigenous languages—not even half of the total. For any shortage, it must rely on the Council of Indigenous Peoples' "Roster of Persons Proficient in Indigenous Languages." Although the Judicial Yuan claims that there are currently no instances of indigenous peoples experiencing language barriers during trials, what the Judicial Yuan fails to mention is that this is simply because Taiwan's indigenous people can all communicate in Chinese, making it unnecessary to invest excessive resources in allocating more indigenous interpreters.

In other words, it is both paradoxical and regrettable that, even though indigenous languages are now recognized as national languages, indigenous peoples still bear the risk of facing difficulties in accessing justice. They remain forced to use Chinese if they wish to seek justice in court. Using their mother tongue in court carries a high possibility of being unable to make statements due to a shortage of qualified interpreters. Furthermore, they must worry that even with the assistance of an interpreter, their mother tongue might be mistranslated, leading to misunderstandings by the judge and compromising a fair trial. Consequently, indigenous peoples are still compelled to make court statements in Chinese. Therefore, even though indigenous languages are officially recognized by the state as national languages, those in power still approach judicial trials with the mindset that "most indigenous peoples should be proficient in Chinese." Yet, it is precisely through this mindset that those in power continually use the contracted interpreter system to perfunctorily dismiss the legitimacy of indigenous languages as national languages. Therefore, the JRF urges that indigenous languages should not be brushed off using the contracted interpreter system as a mere formality. Individual courts must still hire permanent indigenous interpreters to fully implement the Indigenous Peoples Languages Development Act, the National Languages Development Act, and the spirit of the ICERD convention.

On the other hand, our country's interpretation system lacks dedicated, comprehensive legislation. Current interpretation regulations are scattered across various laws and tend to be internal operational guidelines rather than an integrated, specialized legal framework. Furthermore, the interpretation regulations of courts and prosecutorial agencies differ depending on the procedural stage. In criminal cases, from the grassroots police interrogation in the pre-investigation stage to subsequent prosecutorial interrogations, and finally to court trials in the litigation stage, the applicable interpretation rules differ, and the personnel and resources utilized also vary. This discrepancy creates practical operational difficulties and may even prejudice the right of foreign defendants to receive effective legal representation. Consequently, this poses significant barriers for migrant workers and new immigrants in accessing justice, seriously encroaching upon their judicial rights. In response, the JRF reiterates that the government must implement the seven resolutions regarding the judicial interpretation system adopted at the 2017 National Judicial Reform Conference. These include increasing funding for interpreter training, conducting language proficiency tests at all levels, and establishing a database of judicial interpretation talents. However, the current implementation results suffer from the following problems and fail to meet the standards of the ICERD convention:

ICERD Convention Standards:

1. Rosters of interpreters are scattered across the Judicial Yuan and various ministries, making it difficult for parties to query relevant information. Efforts should be made to integrate cross-agency human resources and resources, centralizing information presentation on the websites of the Judicial Yuan or the Ministry of Justice to alleviate the plight of public search inconveniences.
2. Implement comprehensive education, training, and certification standards—particularly regarding legal terminology, professional jargon, procedures handled by the public sector for related events, and an understanding of cultural differences—with uniform certification standards established by the Judicial Yuan to prevent uneven interpretation quality and difficulties in regulation.
3. To respond to the unique composition of Taiwan's multicultural society, the official website of the Judicial Yuan should be designed to offer multiple languages for the public to choose from and browse, ensuring consistency in the information provided across all language versions of the website.
4. Design a multilingual "Post-Use Feedback Form" for the interpretation system, fully utilizing feedback forms and evaluation sheets in the parties' native languages to understand their utilization of interpretation resources.
5. Establish comprehensive laws on interpreter recusal mechanisms and ethical standards to prevent unscrupulous employment agencies from acting as interpreters for foreign nationals, which would be even more detrimental to protecting their rights.

In summary, it is hoped that following the ICERD international review, the government will reassess our country's judicial interpretation system, refrain from degrading the status of indigenous languages as national languages, and stop letting the fragmented and chaotic interpretation system become a judicial nightmare for migrant workers and new immigrants.