Court Translation Services: Failures and Proposals for Improvement

Photo: Wix

About half of Israel's residents—Arabs, immigrants, etc.—belong to minority groups where Hebrew is not the dominant language. There are also thousands of people who do not speak Hebrew who live in Israel, including Palestinians, migrant workers, tourists, refugees and asylum seekers, etc. When those who do not speak Hebrew fluently, or at all, need to go to court, translation services is necessary in the administration of justice and ensuring their right to access the court system. However, court translation services suffer from major deficiencies and flaws, to the extent that it violates the right to a fair trial and access to justice for significant numbers of people. 

The legal clinics at Tel Aviv University, in collaboration with researchers from Bar-Ilan University, Ruppin Academic Center, Kav LaOved, and ACRI, contacted the Courts Administration on July 9, 2025, describing the major failures in the system and proposals for its improvement. We requested that the court system undertake a comprehensive reform that would include formulating regulations, professional training, and clear procedures to ensure that every person, even if they do not speak Hebrew, can exercise their right to an equal, fair, and comprehensible legal proceeding. 

The main failures in the current system that we noted: 

• No clear guidelines regarding eligibility for translation, and requests for interpreter funding are inconsistently and unpredictably rejected. 

• No clear professional or ethical criteria for who can serve as an interpreter. There are no educational, training, or experience requirements, nor is there any verification of skills. The screening process relies on declarations only. 

• Most interpreters are employed as independent contractors with low pay and no social benefits. 

• Interpreters do not receive instruction, preparation time for hearings, or ongoing professional supervision. There is no quality control mechanism for the work. 

• Judges do not verify whether the parties understand the proceedings or the quality of the translation. 

• There are no procedures for checking conflicts of interest, especially in cases of especially uncommon languages, where there may be an economic relationship between an interpreter and a party to the proceeding. 

• Lack of investment in integrating translation technologies, training based on professional ethics, or professional development for interpreters. 

Proposals for improvement and systemic change that we recommended: 

• Drafting a uniform and clear policy for eligibility for translation services that would apply to all courts. 

• Establishing professional criteria for interpreters including mandatory training, skills testing, and ethics examinations. 

• Creating a central body to manage translation services, similar to existing models in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. 

• Implementing supervision and quality control of translation that includes feedback, testing, and refresher training. 

• Improving conditions for employment, including fair compensation, preparation time, and mentoring for new interpreters. 

• Integrating advanced translation technologies and AI-based support. 

• Training judges to conduct professional and fair proceedings that are translated. 

The response that was sent on behalf of the Court Administration stated that there was a decision "to invest in digital means that will provide accurate and professional simultaneous/consecutive translation in the future, using artificial intelligence and existing market technologies." ACRI's response argued that "investment in digital means" does not sufficiently address the full range of problems, especially since the technology is still not fully developed, and to the best of our knowledge cannot currently replace translation services in a legal system. We reiterated our demands for regulating eligibility for translation services, mapping existing needs, establishing basic threshold requirements for interpreters, training and supervision for interpreters, and budgeting properly for translation services.

Letter to the Courts Administration, September 7, 2025 (Heb) 

Response from the Courts Administration, October 15, 2025 (Heb) 

Response of the organizations and researchers, November 4, 2025 (Heb)

The letters are signed by:

Adv. Michal Tajer, Faculty of Law at Tel Aviv University and ACRI

Adv. Elad Cahana, Kav LaOved

Dr. Tanya Veinova, Dr. Michal Shuster, Neri Savanya, researchers and lecturers in the field of translation and linguistic accessibility

Adv. Moshe Kashles, Adv. Liad Strolov, Prof. Omri Yadlin, Prof. Hila Shamir, Faculty of Law at Tel Aviv University