Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal |83 d. Language use in criminal proceedings Section 70(1)(j) of the Constitution affords every accused person the right to have trial proceedings interpreted into a language that they understand and is substantially similar to article 14(3) of the ICCPR.97 S 70(1)(j) of the Constitution does not however confer a right to be tried in a language of choice or language of the accused or the accused’s first language or the language that they speak but merely to be tried in a language that the accused person understands. A language that one understands is different from the language that one speaks. If for instance, a person that primarily speaks Sena and also understands English has proceedings conducted English, the court would have complied with s 70(1)(j) of the Constitution. International law supports this reasoning and interpretation. Clause 5.3 of the UNHRC General Comment 23 makes it clear that ‘[a]rticle 14(3)(f) of the ICCPR does not, in any other circumstances, confer on accused persons the right to use or speak the language of their choice in court proceedings.’ In Guesdon v France,98 the UNHRC established that the notion of fair trial does not imply that the accused be afforded the possibility to express himself in the language which he normally speaks or speaks with a maximum of ease. If a court is certain that the accused is sufficiently proficient in the court’s language, it is not required to find out if he would prefer to use another language. In Harward v Norway99 the UNHRC held that an essential element of the concept of a fair trial under Article 1 is to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence. However, this does not entail that an accused who does not understand the language used in court, has the right to be furnished with translations of all relevant documents in a criminal investigation, provided that the relevant documents are made available to his counsel. 97 It provides that ‘‘In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him... f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court...” 98 Communication 219/1986 Guesdon v France UNHR Committee (23 August 1990), UN Doc CCPR/C/39/D/219/(1986). 99 Com m unication 451/1991 Harward v Norway UNHR Com m ittee (16 August 1994), UN Doc CCPR/C/51/D/451/(1991).