Alicante Provincial Court has annulled a sentence handed to a Chinese national who was sentenced to three years in prison for drug trafficking because essential documents were not translated into the defendant’s language. The ruling argues that the person’s fundamental rights to a fair process, with all guarantees and no vulnerability, were violated. In a decision by the Tenth Division, which was not appealed to the Supreme Court, the court upheld the appeal filed by the defendant’s counsel, Francisco González Fernández, and ordered the defendant’s release by Benidorm Criminal Court No. 3.
According to the earlier judgment that was annulled, the acquitted defendant was held responsible for a marijuana plantation found on forest land near a Pedreguer restaurant open to the public. A total of 1,506 cannabis plants and 21.9 kilograms of marijuana buds were seized at the site, valued at around 160,000 euros on the illegal market. In addition to the plantation, the defendant was found to have installed a concealed electrical outlet connected to the Iberdrola network, which the court noted as a 25,000-euro cost. However, the court deemed that particular amount unproven.
In its sentence, the Benidorm court rejected a prior request from attorney Francisco González, ruling that the lack of translation of essential documents created the vulnerability at issue. The court imposed three years and one day in prison for a crime against public health and a 2,400-euro fine for a minor fraud related to electric power distribution.
Decision overturned
The defendant’s defense presented several grounds for appeal before the Court. After review, the Tenth Division agreed to annul the decision in part and demanded that important documents be translated into Chinese, including an arrest warrant and an indictment, before proceeding further.
The defense had long urged the translation of certain documents since the investigation phase, reiterating this point during pre-trial defense. The court, however, did not grant those requests and the defendant was tried and sentenced accordingly.
Unanswered
In its decision, the court notes that the defendant had indeed requested translations of some documents but did not receive a reply. Conversely, the Benidorm court claimed that the requests were not recorded, whereas the reviewing court found that they had been filed.
The Alicante Tribunal grounded its ruling on the doctrine that constitutional guarantees require that oral proceedings be interpreted for a person who does not understand the language of the investigation, and that providing a written translation of essential documents is a critical safeguard.
The ruling states that the court must ex officio order translations of essential documents such as arrest warrants, indictments, and sentences. This means there is no need to prove the translation requests if the translation existed, even if the judge could not locate it at the time. The defendant, who had not spoken Spanish from the moment of arrest, had requested help from a translator. The defense’s complaint emphasized the translation of essential case documents and argued that the lack of translation led to personal and financial hardship in the eyes of the court.
Ultimately, the Tenth Division held that the defendant’s fundamental right to a trial with all guarantees had been violated. It concluded that acquittal was justified because the absence of translations undermined the integrity of the proceedings and the fairness of the verdict.
As a result, the case underscores the importance of timely access to translations of critical legal documents to safeguard due process and uphold the rights of non-native speakers in judicial settings.
— Citations: Court decisions referenced in the appeal, with attribution to the relevant judicial bodies and legal representatives involved in the case.