Barzhig v. France
From DADEL
Case Summary
Barzhig v. France
Human Rights Committee
Communication No. 327/1988
France. 06/05/91.
CCPR/C/41/D/327/1988
The author of the communication, Hervé Barzhig, is a French citizen. He claims violation of his rights under articles 2, 14, 19, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("Convention”).
Contents |
Facts
On 7 January 1988, the author appeared before the Tribunal Correctionnel of Rennes on charges of having defaced road signs. He requested the court's permission to express himself in Breton, his mother tongue, and asked for an interpreter. The court rejected the request and referred consideration of the merits to a later date. The President of the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Tribunal Correctionnel of Rennes denied the author's appeal of the decision to deny him an interpreter. On 3 March 1988, the case was considered on its merits, and the author was heard in French. He was given a suspended sentence of four months' imprisonment and fined 5,000 French francs. The sentence was confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Rennes. The author submitted that the State party's refusal to respect the rights of Bretons to express themselves in their mother tongue constitutes a violation of article 2 of the Covenant and also constitutes discrimination on the basis of language under article 26.
Admissibility
The State party claimed that the communication was inadmissible because the author failed to appeal the decision of the judge of the Tribunal Correctionnel of Rennes not to let him express himself in Breton. The Committee observed that the author sought the recognition of Breton as a vehicle of expression in court, and recalled that domestic remedies need not be exhausted if they objectively had no prospect of success. Taking into account relevant French legislation as well as article 2 of the French Constitution, the Committee concluded that there were no effective remedies that the author might have pursued. It declared the communication admissible in so far as it appeared to raise issues under articles 14 and 26 of the Covenant.
Merits
The Committee observed that article 14 of the Covenant is concerned with procedural equality; in particular, the principle of equality of arms in criminal proceedings. It does not require a State party to provide the services of an interpreter if an accused is sufficiently proficient in the language of the court. In the Committee's opinion, the author failed to show that he and the witness called on his behalf were unable to understand and to express themselves adequately in French before the tribunal. The Committee concluded that in the present case there was no discrimination under article 26 on account of language.
Decision
The Committee did not find a violation of article 14 in conjunction with article 26 of the Covenant.