Abstract:
This thesis examines the practical and legal challenges surrounding the interpretation right that
HSIP suspects or defendants have during criminal prosecution by employing exploratory
research design and qualitative type of research method. Accordingly, the study incorporated
information gathered through interviews and focus group discussions together with factual court
cases to investigate as to how the personnel of the justice machinery handle trial processes
where they are faced with HSIP suspects or defendants. Because the right of HSIPs cross-cuts
two sensitive parts of human rights, namely, disability rights and rights of accused persons, both
sets of rights are scrupulously touched upon. More to that, some specific rights are singled out to
show how the right to an interpreter is connected to other sets of rights, and how the fair trial
rights of HSIPs are compromised, affecting the overall process of the trial. The study tries to
raise in detail the difficulties that HSIPs encounter during criminal proceedings because of the
failure of the personnel of the justice machinery to understand their needs of communication,
and the failure to adhere to the rules of procedure in determining the mental competence to
stand at trial as stipulated by the Criminal Code of Ethiopia. In the study, it is upheld that the
determination of mental as well as communicational competence, for the determination of which
the judicature and other entities of the justice machinery play the greatest role, is as equally
important as the vindication of the right to an interpreter and facilitation of the latter. The thesis
additionally, champions for the extension of the coverage of the free legal assistance scheme to
HSIPs, without the need to take into consideration not only the gravity of the crimes, but also the
personal situations. And, it further argues that such scheme has to extend from the pretrial
process all the way through the appellate stage of the proceeding, giving accent on the utmost
adherence to the principle of fair trial. Accordingly, the writer tries to portray the practical and
legal gaps, that lead into the violation of the rights of HSIPs. And, the possible suggestions for
the challenges discussed in detail have been highlighted in the recommendatory part of the
paper. Though it is intricate to allege that the visible challenges will be solved all at once, a
concerted effort from all stake holders is highly required to arrive at a safe legal harbor.
