Entry | Sworn interpreters / translators

POL Tłumacze przysięgli SPA Traductores / intérpretes jurados

Introduction

Sworn interpreters/translators (SITs) are interpreters and/or translators who are authorised or accredited by the state or a professional organisation (upon passing exams or demonstrating the relevant educational qualifications, often in combination with proven work experience) to prepare translations of documents in foreign languages that are to be used in the justice system and/or in public administration, and/or to interpret in courts (cf. Court interpreting), law enforcement bodies, and state institutions from and/or into foreign languages.

A pile of translated and sealed documents to be used as evidence in court [Courtesy of Joanna Miler-Cassino]

Official authorisation is usually provided by ministries of justice or foreign affairs, governmental agencies, certain higher-level courts or selected universities. SITs are trusted to provide reliable translations/interpreting and in this way ensure the right to a fair trial or the safety of transactions.

In some countries, like Austria or Poland (Korpal 2021: 558), one has to be both a translator and an interpreter, in others, e.g., France or Germany (TEPIS 2021: 16, 34) these are separate professions. In multilingual countries SITs also work between official languages or between recognised minority languages and official ones.

Names in local languages

Examples of names used in individual countries include, e.g., allgemein beeideter und gerichtlich zertifizierter Dolmetscher (Austria), traductor público (Argentina, Ecuador), auktorisoitu kääntäjä (Finland), öffentlich bestellter Übersetzer, allgemein ermächtigter Übersetzer, (allgemein) beeidigter Urkundenübersetzer (Germany, different Länder), allgemein beeidigter Gerichtsdolmetscher (Germany, federal level), traducteur/interprète agréé (France), ορκωτός μεταφραστής (Greece), statsautorisert translator (Norway), tłumacz przysięgły (Poland), traductor jurado, intérprete jurado y traductor-intérprete jurado (Spain), traducteur-juré, interprète intervenant au profit des autorités judiciaires et de poursuite pénale (Switzerland, different cantons).

Legal basis

The requirement of participation of SITs in law enforcement and judicial proceedings is seen to stem from the right to fair trial, enshrined in Articles 8 and 10 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The right to free trial was concretised in Article 14 of the 1996 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), whose paragraph 3 provides, among other things:

In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:

(a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; […]

(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;

It is noted that “the right to an interpreter is a secondary right of the right to fair trial”, however, being more definite than the latter, it is easier to apply in national legal orders. It is also interpreted as including the right to translation of essential documents (Sherman 2017: 257). The right to an interpreter is expressly protected by the American Convention on Human Rights (and even though this is not the case with the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, it was confirmed otherwise), by statutes of international courts (International Criminal Court, special tribunals/courts established for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone and Lebanon), as well as by many national constitutions (Sherman 2017: 279-284), while its status as an international norm finds confirmation in the case law of international courts (Sherman 2017: 286).

The wording of the ICCPR is mirrored by Article 5.2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which concerns the right to liberty and security: “Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him”, and by Article 6.3 ECHR, concerning the right to a fair trial:

Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; […]

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

In the European Union, Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings establishes the right to interpretation (Article 2) and the right to translation (Article 3), while obliging Member States to “take concrete measures to ensure that the interpretation and translation provided meets the quality required” (Article 5.1) and to “endeavour to establish a register or registers of independent translators and interpreters who are appropriately qualified” (Article 5.2). Both obligations were the subject-matter of QUALETRA (JUST/2011/JPEN/AG/2975) and LIT Search (JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/4556) projects implemented with the participation of the European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association (EULITA).

In the United States of America, Executive Order 13166 - “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency” (LEP) implements the principle of nondiscrimination against such persons in contact with state and federal authorities, including courts.

Early history

One of the first historical mentions of a profession akin to SITs was Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts (1539), which provided for French replacing Latin as the official language and created the need for king’s interpreters to help in communication with foreigners and speakers of local languages in France, including in crown courts (TEPIS 2021: 13). Some interpreters later began to work for other courts and private individuals throughout France (Peñarroja 2013: 122). In Spain, the origins of the profession are linked to the colonisation of America, with the first legislative instrument adopted in late 19^th century (Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 31-32). Currently, some countries have dedicated laws or regulations. Often more general acts, such as codes of civil or criminal procedure, provide when the services of SITs have to be used.

The profession at a glance

SITs are a very heterogenous professional group.

[The] organisation of the profession differs from country to country, from clearly regulated professions with a long standing tradition (like that in Argentina) to self-regulated professional fields with no direct State intervention (as occurs in the UK), to professions with clear-cut, regulated access but unregulated activity (Spain). (Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 28).

In federal countries such matters can even be regulated at a level below the federal one. This situation sometimes leads to non-recognition, or inconsistent recognition, of qualifications of SITs and documents translated by sworn translators from other countries or even other parts of federal countries (Pym, Grin, Sfreddo et al. 2012: 31-32, 45; TEPIS 2021: 33, 42). In countries where there are certified community or public service interpreters, their tasks may overlap with those of sworn interpreters.

Despite being state-authorised, most SITs are not public employees, but practice a liberal profession, work as freelancers or part-time (Pym, Grin, Sfreddo et al. 2012: 3). Authorisation from the state is usually linked with fixed official rates for services for courts, law enforcement bodies, and other state authorities, while rates for private clients are negotiable. The situation causes dissatisfaction, sometimes leading to strikes, especially of court interpreters, who are also more likely to complain about poor working conditions (e.g., in Austria, the Netherlands, states of Colorado and California in the US, or province of Ontario in Canada). Another contentious issue is the widespread practice of courts and other authorities appointing ad hoc interpreters - mainly for languages of lesser diffusion, e.g. in connection with the 2015 refugee crisis - without proper testing of their skills (EULITA 2020b: 17, 25; TEPIS 2021: 34-37, 51, the problem was also reported in the Netherlands and in Ontario, Canada).

Official authorisation/accreditation is provided by ministries of justice or foreign affairs, governmental agencies, certain higher-level courts or selected universities (Pym, Grin, Sfreddo et al. 2012: 27). In some countries, e.g., Poland before 2005, Argentina or France, SITs are treated as a sub-group of court-appointed experts/expert witnesses (EULITA 2020b: 10, 26; Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 39). This paralegal profession has a similar objective to that of civil-law notaries: ensuring safety of legal transactions (Kądzielski 2020: 45-48). In Poland it is claimed that SITs are persons of public trust (Bogucki, Dybiec-Gajer, Piotrowska et al. 2019: 134; Piecychna 2019: 130, 134) or that the profession should be recognised as one of public trust (Wojtyś 2019: 26-27). Undoubtedly, the relationship between court interpreters and their clients is based on trust (Hale & Napier 2016). As demonstrated by the so-called “Melbourne case”, poor interpretation can lead to serious miscarriages of justice (Nakane 2007; Piller 2017: 89-90), while lack of highly-qualified interpreters may disorganize the work of the administration of justice or contribute to the overcrowding of prisons.

When are SITs required?

The legal requirements to use the services of SITs also differ from country to country. Countries with strict regulations include Argentina and France. In Argentina, this profession enjoys a privileged position: “all documents which may be part of a legal process must be translated by registered [public translators], as authorities are bound to use duly translated documentation”, while “proceedings involving people who do not speak the Spanish language or documents written in a foreign language where no [public translator] has been called upon are considered null and void” (Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 38). In France, sworn translators have exclusive licence to prepare official or certified translations, while unauthorised use of this professional title runs the risk of one-year imprisonment and a fine of EUR 15,000 (TEPIS 2021: 14). Also in Austria, unauthorised use of the professional title can be fined with up to EUR 10,000.

Translations with imprint of Polish sworn translator’s seal and signature [Courtesy of Joanna Miler-Cassino]

Slightly less strict rules apply in Germany: certified translations are required to be prepared by translators who were sworn in by German courts, but with many exceptions, since judges and civil servants have discretion as to whether to accept a translation. With the profession not regulated at federal level, it is sometimes unclear if institutions will accept translations made in other lands or countries; in some cases even translations made by non-certified translators are accepted (TEPIS 2021: 33). In Spain, although a traductor-intérprete jurado is “authorised by the Spanish State to carry out official translations and interpreting both from and into Spanish”, their “duties and rights have not been clearly stipulated” (Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 31, 32).

In Canada, due to the availability of (certified) community interpreters, the services of certified court interpreters are used only in higher courts (TEPIS 2021: 29). In general, section 22 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees language rights to persons using languages other than English and French. However, as the number of languages in Canada exceeds 200, sometimes a translation not only need not be made by a certified translator, but can be provided by persons who belong to provincial associations of translators, persons who can prove they work(ed) as translators or even members of the clergy with translation experience (TEPIS 2021: 30).

A unique situation exists in Hungary, where the Hungarian Office for Translation and Attestation Ltd. (Országos Fordító és Fordításhitelesítő Iroda Zrt. - OFFI), founded in 1949 and incorporated as a company in 1968, holds statutory monopoly to prepare official translations. Certified translations of certain kinds of documents into official EU languages can also be made by self-employed professionals (qualified translators, Hungarian: szakfordító igazolvány) and other translation offices.

The work of STIs

The main area of specialisation of SITs is legal translation, which poses high demands in terms of training, skills and knowledge: one has to know the relevant legal systems, cultures and legal language conventions, and be able to address asymmetries between legal concepts (Popiołek 2020).

ISO 20771:2020 standard requires legal translators to devote at least 5% of their working time to continuous professional development (ISO 2020: 14) and provides for minimum qualifications for legal translators in terms of education, professional experience and certification by officially recognized professional organisations. Only “officially recognised qualification as an authorised legal translator on the basis of relevant national requirements and regulations” does not appear in combination with any requirements relating to education or experience (ISO 2020: 9). Initially, legal translator organisations criticised the standard for causing extra burden and costs to individual translators (it was rejected in Germany), but ISO experts pointed out its adoption was voluntary. There was a period of absence of certification bodies, when self-certification seemed the only option in some countries, such as the UK.

Moreover, “[d]ue to the formalised, official or sensitive nature of the subject matter in some countries, settings and under certain circumstances, legal translators may be subject to specific professional, confidentiality and ethical requirements, […] and security clearance procedures” (ISO 2020: v). Thus, SITs have to adhere to codes of ethics. Since their work can have important consequences for persons concerned by the interpretation/ translation, they should “make every effort to ensure reliability, objectivity, probity and impartiality” of their translations or interpreting, as well as meet strict requirements of confidentiality, particularly considering that the private sphere of individuals is often concerned (Esteves-Ferreira 2013: 78-80).

Certified translations

Certified or official translations are defined as “translations that meet the requirements to serve as legally valid documents in a target country” (Mayoral-Asensio 2003: 1, emphasis in original). For this purpose, “the translation […] must include a statement signed by the translator certifying accuracy and fidelity to the source text and taking full responsibility for their rendering” (Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 28). Importantly, fidelity should not be confused with literality (Prieto-Ramos 2002, Mayoral-Asensio 2003: 40-52). The statement is often accompanied by an imprint of the translator’s official seal, if used in the given country. In some countries (e.g., Germany, France, Austria) electronic signatures are also accepted, but rules in this respect are in flux. Other solutions include legalisation by a professional organisation (in Argentina) or an official entity (in Hungary). An example of a translator’s statement is shown in Figure 1 below.

In countries where there are no sworn translators, translations are self-certified (see Figure 2), certified by legal professionals - who sometimes check the translator’s qualifications or accept an oath that the translation is accurate - or not certified at all (Pym, Grin, Sfreddo et al. 2012: 3, 25-26).


Figure 1. Examples of a sworn translator’s statement in Spanish [Textem 2022: 96]	Figure 2. Example of a statement in English [short form] suggested for translators without “sworn” status in the US [ATA].

The range of documents that can be the object of official translation “include[s] certificates, diplomas, reports, court decisions, agreements, legislation” (Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 28), and anything that can be used in courts or in public administration, with virtually unlimited topics, e.g., medicine (Kościałkowska-Okońska 2016). Similarly in court interpreting, the range of topics can be very diverse, which is why SITs frequently complain about lack of access to court materials, which forces them to go to court unprepared to deal with, e.g., technical matters.

Apart from the text itself, certified translations include also descriptions of non-textual features, such as watermarks and other security features, seals and stamps, signatures, etc. Sometimes it is necessary to add translator’s notes. Any such descriptions and notes are usually added in square brackets (see, Figure 3 and Figure 4; for more examples, see Prieto-Ramos 2002: 35, Mayoral-Asensio 2003: 130-132).


Figure 3. Examples of descriptions of seals or stamps in Spanish [Textem 2022: 97-98]	Figure 4. Examples of descriptions of seals or stamps in English [Textem 2022: 22, 49]

Liability of STIs

When they do not perform their tasks properly, SITs can incur disciplinary liability, but also civil (contractual or tortious) or criminal liability (Wojtyś 2019). Poland has a professional accountability body that examines complaints against SITs. If they fail to adhere to statutory requirements, they can be punished with: admonition, reprimand, suspension of the right to practice the profession of sworn translator for a given period of time or deprivation of the right to practice the profession of sworn translator (Kubacki & Gościński 2015: 9; Piecychna 2019: 134). France has three disciplinary penalties for SITs who infringe provisions relating to the profession or the principles of honesty or dignity: warning, temporary striking off the list of court experts (for up to three years) and definitive striking off the list (TEPIS 2021: 18). In Argentina, professional associations have state-delegated powers to subject their members to disciplinary liability measures or take legal action, while clients are protected under consumer law (Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 40). In Spain the Ministry of Foreign Affairs checks translations that are challenged by clients or recipient institutions (Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 33). As an example of criminal liability, the Swiss Penal Code provides for a fine or custodial sentence of up to five years for untrue interpretation and a custodial sentence of up to three years if the interpreter discloses official secrets (TEPIS 2021: 40).

Access to the profession

Access to (and training for) the profession is regulated in each individual country or even below country level. In most cases candidates have to (1) pass an exam in interpreting/translation and/or(2) prove their educational qualification and/or professional experience and/or (3) be members of a professional organisation. Their skills are recognised either for life or a period of time, often five years (Pym, Grin, Sfreddo et al. 2012: 29-30). More details about the solutions applied in individual countries are provided below.

In this context it is important to mention the question of training for candidates and continuous professional development for SITs, which is often left unregulated or unspecified, especially for languages of lesser diffusion. The resulting void is sometimes filled by professional organisations, which hold training courses themselves, collaborate with universities by delivering practical workshops or provide mentoring schemes. It is also upon the initiative of organisations or groups of translators that books with examples of frequently translated documents or suggested translation solutions are published. However, as is also shown below, in case of languages of lesser diffusion both training and examination standards are often relaxed and SITs are appointed on an ad hoc basis.

National registers of legal interpreters/translators of EU Member States can be found on e-Justice portal.

Exams

In Austria, candidates with any diploma of higher education and three years’ professional experience or with a translation/interpreting diploma and one year’s experience need to pass exams in translation (L1-L2, L2-L1) and interpreting (sight translation and consecutive interpreting), as well as a test to check their knowledge of legal terms. In 2021, five-year “certification light” was introduced for rare (mainly non-European) languages. Its holders are only authorised to interpret (TEPIS 2021: 7-8).

In Ecuador, expert interpreters and translators are accredited by the Judicial Council of Ecuador. They need, among others, formal translation studies, certain professional experience, and moral integrity. When the Council has verified that a candidate meets these requirements, they can take an exam. The Council keeps a register of accredited experts, including interpreting and translation experts.

In Spain, a new regulatory system for SIT was introduced in 2020, the main novelty being separate accreditation pathways for translation and interpreting. Until then, SITs were authorised for both activities and exams focused primarily on translation (general translation into and from Spanish, legal/economic translation into Spanish); oral skills were either not tested at all or simply tested by means of an oral summary of a written text and comprehension questions. In 2014 an interpreting skills test was introduced (consecutive/liaison interpreting test followed by a dialogue between the examiners and the candidate to ascertain the latter’s comprehension). However, contrary to what is legally provided for, no exams have been organised since, at least, 2018 and this is why, despite the changes introduced in 2020, the new exam structure has not been developed or announced yet. Overall, when exams were held in the past, the notoriously low pass rate (around 4%) confirmed that tests were difficult; however, the scheme was criticised for too much focus on linguistic competence, while not enough on legal translation skills (Ordoñez-López 2021).

In Poland, candidates for SITs need to be proficient in Polish (not only Polish nationals can apply), have a clean criminal record, be university graduates and pass an official exam in translation from and into Polish, consecutive interpreting from Polish into the foreign language, and sight translation into Polish (Korpal 2021: 558). The exams are criticised for lack of clear assessment criteria or guidelines on preferred legal terminology (Solová 2016).

In the Czech Republic, exams are held only to test the candidates’ knowledge of provisions of law, rules of procedure and requirements concerning sworn interpreters and translators (which have been separate professions since 2021). Candidates need to have full legal capacity, clean criminal record, hold a Master’s degree, pass a state exam in the foreign language (or be native speakers of it), document five years of practice as a translator or interpreter, as well as complete a course in law for translators and interpreters (TEPIS 2023: 64-66).

Candidates for SITs in Croatia must be citizens of this country or a member state of the EU/EEA, prove their command of the foreign and Croatian languages at C2 level and have a relevant insurance policy. Persons who meet such conditions can take an exam in the basics of law, which tests their familiarity with the system of ordinary courts, state administration and legal terminology. Having passed the exam, they need to complete a course organised by a professional association, covering the practical aspects or the profession (TEPIS 2023: 60).

Sweden has had a system of tests for state-authorised interpreters (often referred to as contact interpreters), including specialised medical and legal interpreters, since the 1970s. Interpreters’ translation skills are also tested. Public authorities are required by law to provide interpreters, including translations of documents, for persons who have not mastered Swedish (Tiselius 2022: 183-184, 188).

In Germany, access to the profession of sworn translator is regulated by the individual Länder. A candidate has to pass local exams, becoming a staatlich geprüfter Übersetzer, or to be a graduate of a translation programme (Diplom-Übersetzer). In some Länder candidates need to prove their knowledge of law and be university graduates. In most Länder, requirements include a clean criminal record, no tax arrears, and certificates proving translation experience. The authorisation is valid for life or five years, depending on the Land (TEPIS 2021: 32-33). The requirements for sworn interpreters have recently been standardised at federal level. Authorisations to practice the profession will be valid for five-year periods. However, the law is criticised for not addressing the problem of judges and civil servants appointing interpreters on an ad hoc basis (TEPIS 2021: 34).

In Switzerland, another federal country, some cantons (e.g., Geneva, Zurich, Bern) organise courses and hold exams for sworn translators or interpreters (whose qualifications are sometimes recognised in other cantons), elsewhere candidates are required to provide documents and/or attend an interview (TEPIS 2021: 38-41).

In the United Arab Emirates, the Ministry of Justice registers accredited translators who meet such requirements as good conduct, a university degree in language, proof of practical experience, and pass examinations (Abu-Risha & Jaganathan 2021: 540).

In Palestine, Translator Accreditation Examinations are held every year by the Ministry of Justice. First the written exam is held and if the candidate passes it, they are allowed to take the oral part. Sworn interpreters/translators are required by law to assist when parties in the proceedings or witnesses do not speak Arabic (Thawabteh & Najjar 2014: 43, 44).

Verification

In France a verification process is in place. Applications indicating the candidate’s languages and specialisations (interpreting/translation), qualifications and professional experience are submitted to courts of appeal and successful candidates are entered for a trial period of three years on lists of court experts kept by individual courts (though authorised to practice throughout France). Applications for re-entry for subsequent five-year periods are examined by commissions including judges and court experts. Applicants may be asked for interviews and information (e.g., on disciplinary penalties) is sought from the Prosecutor General. The process is free of charge, but the criteria are unclear and decisions need not be substantiated (TEPIS 2021: 16-17).

In Belgium, there is a national register of sworn translators, interpreters and translators-interpreters. To be entered in the register a candidate has to hold a diploma in translation or interpreting and a certificate confirming they know the Belgian judicial system, as well as to prove at least five years of relevant professional practice (Verliede & Defrancq 2022: 3).

Professional organisations

In Argentina, candidates need to graduate from a Traductorado Público programme and be members of a professional organisation. Persons accepted for the programme must first pass a demanding foreign language exam. The curriculum includes Spanish and foreign languages, and subjects linked to law; therefore graduates need not pass any further exams and are entitled to apply for membership in professional organisations, which are authorised by the state to register public translators and authenticate their signatures. Accreditation is for life, also as court interpreters. Only public translators can work as criminal court interpreters, though most work as translators only (Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 38-39).

In Canada, access to the regulated profession of certified translator or interpreter is acquired in two stages. The first is membership of a provincial organisation, which is conditional on graduation from a translation programme or experience as a translator and passing an initial exam. The person becomes a candidate/associate and some institutions already accept their translations. Upon demonstrating more professional experience and passing another exam (with a very low pass rate) they can become certified translators (separately for each language combination and direction) or interpreters. Some courts hold their own exams or recruitment and training procedures awarding titles such as “Ministry of Attorney General Court Interpreter” or “Immigration and Refugee Board Interpreter”) (TEPIS 2021: 27-28).

Other methods

In Italy and Portugal, SITs are appointed on an ad hoc basis by the judiciary. Italian courts keep registers of expert witnesses, which include translators and interpreters, while in Portugal “[l]awyers, solicitors, registrars and registry officials as well as (entire!) chambers of commerce have been legally acknowledged competence not just to certify translations but also to ‘make and certify’ them” (EULITA 2020b: 31).

In Greece, a law adopted in 2008 (Law 3712/08) provided for very demanding exams for translators, but has not been implemented. Now official translations can be prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, lawyers, consular personnel or graduates of the Ionian University Department of Foreign Languages (EULITA 2020b: 16-17).

In Bulgaria, it is translation companies that are accredited (by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and certify the translations, but for accreditation they need to submit lists of their translators (Pym, Grin, Sfreddo et al. 2012: 27).

In Oman, the Council of the Administrative Affairs of the Judiciary appoints full-time court interpreters of English, Urdu, and Tamil. Other Arab countries that have laws regulating the profession include Syria, Algeria and Tunisia (Abu-Risha & Jaganathan 2021: 540).

Countries without a regulated profession

In countries where an officially recognised profession does not exist, efforts are nevertheless made to ensure adequate quality of the services through certification (defined as "[a] voluntary process by which an organisation grants recognition to an individual who has met certain predetermined qualification standards" (Pym, Grin, Sfreddo et al. 2012: 15)).

In Denmark the state no longer authorizes SITs, but certification can be obtained from professional associations. After a procurement scheme led to poor quality services provided to the police and immigration services, the police set up its own temporary (and non-public) register of translators and interpreters (EULITA 2020b: 3).

In Japan, since 2010 there have been state exams for certified translators in certain languages (Horie & Trzaskawka 2017: 416), but otherwise it is courts that interview potential interpreters/translators before putting on their lists and the only task at the interview is sight interpreting (EULITA 2020a).

In Ireland, the Irish Translators’ and Interpreters’ Association (ITIA) holds exams for its members and keeps a register of ITIA certified legal translators, who are authorised to prepare certified translations. There is no requirement to procure services from ITIA members, but some organisations recommend doing so (TEPIS 2021: 23-24).

In Australia, an elaborate certification (previously accreditation) scheme is run by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI), with levels ranging from Recognised Practising Translators or Interpreters, through Certified Translators or Interpreters, to advanced and specialist ones, including in the legal field (NAATI, but it has also been criticised).

In the United States of America, (generalist) translators are certified by the American Translators Association (ATA), while court interpreters are certified if they pass an examination developed at national level by the National Center for State Courts (comprising a written test and an oral part, in October 2023 available for 18 languages), which is administered at state level. Additional requirements are set at state level. For other languages certification may also be available at state level. The Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination is available for Spanish/English pair only (FCICE).

In the United Kingdom, if a translation needs to be “certified or legalised” so that “the translator becomes clearly accountable for their text”, it can be notarised or self-certified. Notaries certify their own translations or “verify that the person appearing before them is the appropriate signatory of the statement attached to the translation” (Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 30). Notarisation is used when “a higher degree of certification is required”, but otherwise self-certified translations with a statement confirming professional qualifications or membership of organisations are accepted (Vigier, Klein & Festinger 2013: 31). In case of interpreting, courts swear in (oath or affirmation) persons to interpret in a given case. Certification by professional organisations is gaining importance. The National Register of Public Service Interpreters keeps a register of interpreters, documents their qualifications, and handles complaints about their services. Efforts are made to establish a similar register of translators. Professional organisations, such as the Chartered Institute of Linguists and the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (but also local Welsh, Scottish or North Irish organisations) provide certification services. Another way to prove one’s qualifications is to pass exams, such as Diploma in Translation, Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (with law an option in both), or Diploma in Police Interpreting (TEPIS 2021: 56-63).

In Jordan, in criminal cases courts are obliged to appoint interpreters for the accused or witnesses who do not speak Arabic and in civil cases they will accept interpreted testimony or the words of a “trustworthy interpreter” who has taken an oath. Yet there are no provisions of law on professional standards of court interpreters and no formal university training is offered, while objections are sometimes raised by parties about the standard of interpretation (Abu-Risha & Jaganathan 2021: 540, 543-544).

In South Africa, with its 11 official languages, after the intense interpreting effort for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1996-1998, an ambitious National Language Policy Framework was developed, but never adopted. The law requires official government communication to be provided in just three official languages and no language policy norms are set, making English, a minority language, the country’s lingua franca, including in courts (Wallmach 2014). The constitutional right to be tried in a language one understands is not further concretised. The languages of the record in courts are English and Afrikaans, creating a risk of injustice. Although the law requires “competent interpreters” to be used in lower courts, no requirements are set as to skills or practice (Lebese 2014: 194, 202-203).

The situation is similar in Zambia, where the Constitution identifies English as the official language, while just mentioning seven other national languages. Lack of court interpreters is seen to result in miscarriages of justice (Kasonde 2016: 26-27).

South Korea has no legal interpreter scheme either: there are no laws to regulate interpreting in legal settings or the qualifications of such interpreters. The result is that persons registered as civilian police interpreters are not professionals and receive no training (Lee 2017: 195). Sometimes, translation and interpreting staff from Multicultural Family Support Centres are called to interpret in courts or other legal settings for migrants, even though they themselves are migrants with only intermediate command of Korean (Lee, Choi, Huh et al. 2016: 184).

SITs perceptions by society, job satisfaction and stress

There is a growing body of research focusing on SITs themselves and their perception of their job, and on the perception of SITs by judges and counsels participating in trials with the participation of SITs (Liber-Kwiecińska 2021). The following three charts summarize answers to questions about the role of SITs in court trials.


Figure 5. Counsels’ answers to question 3: The presence of a sworn interpreter is redundant if the foreigner has communicative command of Polish [Liber-Kwiecińska 2021: 34]	Figure 6. Counsels’ answers to question 10: The participation of a sworn interpreter makes it difficult to conduct a court trial [Liber-Kwiecińska 2021: 38]	Figure 7. Counsels’ answers to question 13: Interpretation can influence a judge’s assessment of statements made by participants of a court trial [Liber-Kwiecińska 2021: 38]

A survey among Polish sworn translators showed that “nearly half the respondents are satisfied with the scale of activity in the job they perform”, while “a large number of those surveyed felt satisfied or […] very satisfied with the following scales: independence, variety, social service, ability utilisation, compensation, responsibility and creativity” (Piecychna 2019: 136-137). A relatively high proportion (35-40%) of respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with aspects such as activity, social status, moral values and security. Finally, aspects with the highest proportions of dissatisfied respondents (ca. 25%), were compensation and security (Piecychna 2019: 137).

In a study comparing work-related happiness of Slovak sworn translators and their institutional counterparts (EU translators), Bednárová-Gibová & Madoš (2019) found that despite differences in remuneration, sworn and EU translators were almost equally happy with their jobs (see Figure 8). The mean happiness scoring for the former was 3.86 (n=83), while for the latter 3.75 (n=31).

Interestingly, the top five aspects that were most directly linked to satisfaction differed: for both groups the two most important ones were “their abilities to deal with difficult translations and the increase in knowledge and translation skills that come with their work” (Bednárová-Gibová & Madoš 2019: 235), but they were followed by respect/recognition and ability to fulfil clients’ expectations in the case of sworn translators (Figure 9), while EU translators put high compensation and responsibility ahead of them (Figure 10).


Figure 8. Work-related happiness of Slovak sworn and EU translators [Bednárová-Gibová & Madoš 2019: 236]	Figure 9. Sources of greatest professional satisfaction for Slovak sworn translators [Bednárová-Gibová & Madoš 2019: 235]	Figure 10. Sources of greatest professional satisfaction for Slovak EU translators [Bednárová-Gibová & Madoš 2019: 235]

SITs may sometimes be exposed to violent behaviour, since they work in potentially dangerous settings, including assisting in communication with criminals at police stations, state attorney’s offices, courts or prisons (Rodeš 2016). In a small-scale (n=37) international survey on SITs exposure to risk, affirmative and negative answers to the question whether respondents’ safety had ever been jeopardised were split almost evenly, though most respondents had not experienced “fear, threat or pressure while interpreting” (62.2%) and, in general, felt safe while performing their job (75.7%) (Rodeš 2016: 105). Still, they reported serious safety incidents, such as “Sitting with the accused in a police interviewing room without supervision” or “A defendant who tried to show, on my neck, how someone tried to strangle him” (Rodeš 2016: 112), which seems to confirm that interpreters’ safety is sometimes neglected by the institutions using their services.

A vast majority of respondent SITs (83.8 %) did not know if their security was regulated in any laws and even more (89.2%) saw the need for regulation of hazardous working conditions. Other measures respondents would welcome included:

concealing their personal information (83.8%)
remote interpreting (70.3%)
providing information about protection methods during professional training (89.2%) (Rodeš 2016: 106).

Despite the relative satisfaction reported by Polish SITs, the job also involves considerable stress caused by factors other than safety risks (Korpal 2021). The two figures below show stress factors in court interpreting (Figure 11) and those applicable to both interpreting and translation (Figure 12). Unsurprisingly, the strongest stressors in court interpreting include speakers’ fast delivery rate, lack of access to case materials before an assignment, and poor room acoustics (Korpal 2021: 560). As for stressors that apply to both modes, most respondents identified a sense of responsibility for the translated/interpreted content, poor cooperation with colleagues (e.g., dumping rates), and fear of making mistakes (Korpal 2021: 561).


Figure 11. Stressors in court interpreting [Korpal 2021: 560]	Figure 12. Stressors in both interpreting and translation [Korpal 2021: 561]

Other stressors identified by respondents included: delayed trials and payments, judges and witnesses who are not used to being interpreted, “unrealistic expectations” about productivity, high costs of working freelance, “lack of respect towards the profession”, dealing with mistakes in source texts, and maintaining impartiality when some parties expect the interpreter to be their ally (Korpal 2021: 562-563).

In countries without a profession akin to SITs, research is conducted on how persons interpreting in courts and during investigations cope with the task (e.g., Nakane 2007, Lebese 2014, Lee 2017).

Research potential

Since the content dealt with by SITs or their counterparts in countries where the profession does not exist is often confidential, research on what they actually translate or interpret is difficult, though, as demonstrated by Nakane (2007), not impossible.

The training and examinations for SITs also merit a closer look, as shown by Ordóñez-Lopez (2021) and Solová (2016). During training, repeated requests are made for explaining “best practices” in sworn translation, e.g., how to describe non-textual features of documents.

The questions of status of SITs or related professions (e.g., Hale & Napier 2016; Pym, Grin, Sfreddo et al. 2012; Plencovich, Bacco, Rivas et al. 2021) and the psychological impact of work in the profession (Roberts 2015) still seem under-researched.

Research on SITs may also be part of research in other areas; see “Research potential” sections in Didactics of translation, Legal translation or Court interpreting.