The Language of Proceedings and the Interpreter Guarantee
In a civil court a case is conducted in the state language, yet a person who does not know the state language cannot for that reason be sidelined in the process. Article 9 of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia promises that a person not knowing the state language shall have an interpreter appointed. This guarantee is not a privilege of the court — demanding its application serves both the procedural rights of the party and the full examination of the case: explanations, testimony and documents that the party does not understand at all, or fully, cannot serve as the evidentiary basis for defending that party's position.
The same article contains the rule of open justice: all cases in court are examined at open hearings unless this contradicts the interests of protecting state secrets; examination at a closed hearing is also admissible in other cases provided by legislation, on the basis of a substantiated motion of a party. A closed hearing is attended by the parties and their representatives, and where necessary — by witnesses, experts, specialists and interpreters; the court issues a substantiated ruling on such examination. The figure of the interpreter is relevant here as well: regardless of the format of the hearing, a language barrier must not become a factor in the quality of the examination.
The Scope of the Interpreter's Duty
Article 213 describes precisely what a court interpreter does. The court explains to the interpreter the duty to translate the explanations, testimony and statements of persons who do not know the language of proceedings or have a limitation of capacity that excludes communication without sign language. This means that interpretation is not confined to a party speaking a foreign tongue — a person with a hearing impairment is likewise served by an interpreter in sign language.
The interpreter's duty runs in both directions: the interpreter must translate for such persons the content of the explanations, testimony and statements of others and, in parallel, the content of documents published in court, as well as the instructions, rulings and decisions of the court. The interpreter thus builds a bridge between the person and the court in both directions: not only does what the person says enter the process, but the whole course of the process becomes comprehensible to the person.