Adalah Demands Recognition of Arabic as an Official State Language in Israeli Courts
On 24 January 2002, Adalah submitted a petition to the Supreme Court against the Director of the Courts, District Court Judge Dan Arbel; the Minister of Justice, Meir Shitreet; and the Attorney General, Elyakim Rubenstein, demanding the nullification of Judge Arbel’s 24 December 2001 instructions sent to the presidents of the District, Magistrate and Labor Courts. Judge Arbel instructed the court presidents to refrain from charging the State Treasury for translation fees in civil proceedings and trials. Based on Judge Arbel’s instructions, the parties in civil disputes will be obliged to pay for any translations they request, both for in-court translations of the proceedings and for translations of documents submitted to the court. The petition sets forth three main demands for relief: (1) that the state provide a professional translation system, which will ensure prompt and accessible translation services for Arabic speakers during civil court proceedings; (2) the establishment of a new court rule by which litigants may submit supporting documents to the court in Arabic. Currently, litigants must provide all documents in Hebrew and face heavy translation costs; and (3) that judges be required to inform litigants of their right to use Arabic during judicial proceedings.
Adalah’s General Director Hassan Jabareen and Staff Attorney Jamil Dakwar argued that Judge Arbel’s instructions are illegal and should be voided, as they contradict the law as well as standard court practice in regards to the official status of Arabic. Judge Arbel does not have the legal authority or precedent to issue such instructions, which intervene in court procedures, negate the use of Arabic in the courts, and jeopardize the due process and equal rights of litigants. Judge Arbel has authority only over administrative matters which concern the interaction between the judicial system and other government agencies, and not between judges and litigants.
The petition demands a comprehensive and far-reaching reform of the judicial system in Israel, specifically relating to the obligation of courts to respect the status of Arabic as an official language of the state. The petition argues that the courts have an obligation to establish a professional translation system that will assist litigants to testify in Arabic, as well as submit documents written in Arabic, without having to pay fees for translation. Attorneys Jabareen and Dakwar state in the petition that even before Judge Arbel issued his instructions, most courts failed to provide adequate translation services for Arabic speakers in civil proceedings. Translation services in the majority of Israeli courts are inadequate and lack professional standards, efficiency and accessibility. The absence of prompt and professional translation services in the courts diminishes the ability of litigants and witnesses who are not fluent in Hebrew to express themselves, thus damaging their credibility before the courts. Arabic-speaking witnesses do not impress the judges in a manner equal to that of other witnesses.
The petition argued that the status of Arabic as an official language of Israel obligates the courts to do everything within their power to facilitate a fair hearing for Arab litigants who are not fluent in Hebrew as well as to serve those who request Arabic translation of court proceedings and documents. The petition included comparative case precedent concerning the use of official state languages and minority languages in court in other countries. In Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Belgium, Italy and other countries, all official languages of the state received recognition by the court and are permitted for use in the court. Some of these countries also allow the use of minority languages that are not official state languages in court. In these counties, members of the minority are entitled to raise their arguments, testify and submit documents in their native language without being charged translation fees. In some of these countries, the courts also have an obligation to publish their judgments in the native languages of the state’s minorities.
In the petition, Adalah argued:
“The obligation to provide professional translation services is integral to the right of equality between litigants. The policy of the respondents infringes on the right of equality on the basis on nationality between Arab and Jewish litigants in Israel. In addition, the obligation to provide professional, immediate and accessible translation services are part of the basic principles of justice, particularly in regards to the obligation to maintain due process in trial. The policy of the respondent diminishes the ability of litigants to bring relevant witnesses to court, because of the related financial burden. Moreover, the linguistic restriction on Arabic speakers diminishes the basic principle of equality in [terms of] access to the courts.”
On 24 January 2002, the Supreme Court ordered the respondents to reply to the petition within thirty days.
(H.C. 79202/02, Adalah v. The Director of the Courts, et. al.)
