VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1 & 2) DR KATALIN BALOGH LESSIUS ANTWERP K.U.LEUVEN TRAFUT WORKSOP HELSINKI TRAFUT Helsinki June

VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 2 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

Article 2 Right to interpretation 1. Member States shall ensure that suspected or accused persons who do not speak or understand the language of the criminal proceedings concerned are provided, without delay, with interpretation during criminal proceedings before investigative and judicial authorities, including during police questioning, all court hearings and any necessary interim hearings. 6. Where appropriate, communication technology such as videoconferencing, telephone or the Internet may be used, unless the physical presence of the interpreter is required in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. 8. Interpretation […] shall be of a quality sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 3 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

University of Surrey (UK), Lessius University (BE), Local Police Antwerp (BE), Dutch Ministry of Justice (NL), Dutch Legal Aid Board (NL), Polish Society of Sworn and Specialised Translators TEPIS (PL) Ann Corsellis (internal evaluator) Institut Télécom (FR) Avidicus2), VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 4 TRAFUT Helsinki June

VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 5 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

a variety of settings Videoconference interpreting (B)  The primary participants are at two different locations (e.g. court room and prison)  The interpreter is with the non-native speaker (e.g. in prison) VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 6 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

Dutch courtrooms with a videoconference installation VC/B: VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 7 The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 8 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

Perspective from the detention centre: VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 9 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

A document reader VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 10 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 11 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

… a variety of settings Remote interpreting  All primary participants together in a single location (e.g. in a police station)  Interpreter at a different location (e.g. in another police station) VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 12 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

Research issues: Identification of the extent of current and future demand; relevant settings Investigation of the effect of videoconferencing on the quality of interpreting Investigation of the effect of combining of videoconferencing and interpreting on the dynamic and goals of legal communication Identification of best practice communication/interpreting strategies as well as long-term problems Design of solutions to mitigate problems Development of training Definition of boundaries for the use of videoconferencing and interpreting VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 13 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 14 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

AVIDICUS Germersheim/Köln

Recommendations for judicial services VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 16 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

1. Identify your needs Map out your setting – who talks to whom, who needs to see/hear whom, where are the main parties and the interpreter located (is the distribution flexible yes/no), how long is the interaction etc. 2. Involve expertise at the planning stage Involve interpreting/linguistic, public service and technological expertise to work out the specifics of your setting and to approve your solution. 3. Use the best available technology Provide high-quality sound and video for all parties involved and additional equipment for the interpreter as required (e.g. headphones); use a separate document camera (for the presentation of documents, images and other material that can facilitate interpreting) VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 17 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

4. Provide an appropriate work environment for the interpreter Provide an ergonomic and quiet work environment for the interpreter, allow the interpreter to control the equipment (e.g. volume control) 5. Allow a “trial and error” phase Run a pilot before large-scale purchase, implementation and roll- out of equipment Identify critical instances, make necessary adjustments 6. Allow for stage-by-stage introduction of new technology Start with ‘low-impact’ communication, evaluate effect of technology at each stage, assess implications for the next stage VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 18 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

7. Use qualified participants and interpreters Use trained and experienced legal interpreters Use legal staff who is experienced in working with interpreters 8. Offer training to the interpreters and legal practitioners Offer an early-stage induction before roll-out of technology Provide continuous professional training (including awareness of wider context, mastery of technology, communicative situation and supportive techniques such as stress management) 9. Agree risk-assessment procedures Agree procedures for deciding whether or not a video link in combination with interpreting is appropriate, consult experienced interpreters VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 19 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

10. Develop guidelines/protocols for your procedures Who is responsible e.g. for booking, timing, testing, starting and controlling the connection; what is the procedure before, during and after the session (briefing of interpreter, beginning of session, introductions, rules during session, debriefing) 11. Make provisions for breakdown Develop a protocol for communication or technological breakdown; do not leave it to the interpreter to resolve breakdowns 12. Work towards a code of best practice Judicial services, legal practitioners and interpreter associations should cooperate to develop joint codes of best practice for video- mediated interpreting VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 20 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 21 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

On the basis of a survey and a comparative study led by the Avidicus Project, practical guidelines have been identified which could facilitate the use of videoconferencing and remote interpreting in the judicial systems of the Member States. On February 2012, the Presidency organised a seminar specifically dedicated to videoconferencing, which took place in Copenhagen. As a follow up on these two elements, it has been suggested to update the Guide on videoconferencing in cross-border proceedings which was published by the General Secretariat of the Council and which is currently available on the e-Justice Portal. The Avidicus project was supported by a Commission grant and led by the Centre for Translation Studies at the University of Surrey and was a collaboration with Lessius Hogeschool (BE), the Antwerp Local Police (BE), the Netherlands Ministry of Security and Justice (NL), the Netherlands Legal Aid Board (NL), the Polish Society of Sworn and Specialised Translators TEPIS (PL) and Mrs Ann Corsellis (UK). VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 22 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

32 a. In order to overcome the difficulties of videoconferencing coupled with interpretation and the negative perceptions which could exists among the practitioners, the following recommendations on how to implement and use video-mediated interpreting could prove helpful: VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 23 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

A. The planning, procurement and installation of videoconferencing equipment for courtrooms -needs should be identified: specific setting, such as who talks to whom, who needs to see whom, should be mapped out. - expertise should be involved at the planning stage: it is highly important that the planning involves interpreting/linguistic, legal and technological experts to work out the specifics of the setting. - high quality technology should be used: high-quality sound and video should be provided for all parties involved and additional equipment for the interpreter as required; a separate document camera (for the presentation of documents, images and other material that can facilitate interpreting) should be used. Note that simultaneous interpreting has specific requirements for (higher) audio and video quality and lip synchronisation than consecutive interpreting. -a ‘trial and error’ phase should be run: especially before any large-scale purchase, implementation and roll-out of videoconferencing equipment. Critical instances in the communication process should be identified and the necessary adjustments made. -a stage-by-stage introduction of new technology should be allowed: low-impact cases should be started with, in order to evaluate the effect of the technology at each stage and to assess the implications for the next stage. -appropriate work environment should be provided for the interpreter : such as an ergonomic and quiet work environment and allowing the interpreter to control the equipment. VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 24 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

B.Enhancing the smooth use of remote interpreting via videoconferencing in the courtrooms -qualified participants and interpreters should be used: appropriately qualified interpreters, and legal staff members who are experienced in working with interpreters, should be used, in order ensure a quality sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. -training should be offered to the interpreters and legal staff: an early-stage induction before rolling out the technology should be offered. Continuous professional training should then be available (including awareness of wider context, mastery of technology, communicative situation and supportive techniques such as stress management). -risk-assessment procedures should be agreed upon: procedures for deciding whether or not a video link in combination with interpreting is appropriate s hould be used and experienced interpreters should be consulted. -guidelines/protocols should be developed: these should specify who is responsible e.g. for booking, timing, testing, starting and controlling the connection; describe the procedure before, during and after the session (briefing of interpreter, beginning of session, introductions, rules during session, debriefing) for all participants. -provisions for breakdown should be made: a protocol for communication breakdown or technological breakdown should be developed as it should not be left to the interpreter to resolve breakdowns. -code of best practice: Judicial services, legal practitioners and interpreter associations should continue to cooperate to improve joint codes of best practice for videoconferencing and remote interpreting." VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 25 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012

AVIDICUS – Assessment of Video-Mediated Interpreting in the Criminal Justice System AVIDICUS 1 – EU Criminal Justice Programme, Project JLS/2008/JPEN/037, AVIDICUS 2 – EU Criminal Justice Programme, Project JUST/2010/JPEN/AG/1558, Website: Contact: Dr Sabine Braun, Centre for Translation Studies, University of Surrey, Project consortium (AVIDICUS 1 and 2): University of Surrey (UK) (co-ordinator), Lessius University (BE), Local Police Antwerp (BE), Institut Télécom (FR), Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice (NL), Dutch Legal Aid Board (NL), Polish Society of Sworn and Specialised Translators TEPIS (PL), Ann Corsellis (UK) © 2012 AVIDICUS This presentation was produced with financial support from the Criminal Justice Programme European Commission - Directorate-General Justice. The views expressed in this material are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. VIDEOCONFERENCING: AVIDICUS PROJECT (1& 2) 26 TRAFUT Helsinki June 2012