Inadmissibility for insufficient substantiation regarding the non-translated national constitution and its impact on the legal profession

Facts

The author, C.L., a South African lawyer and member of the Afrikaans language community, alleges a violation of articles 2, 14, 26, and 27 of the Covenant by the State party for not translating national legislation into all official languages. Despite constitutional provisions mandating equal status for official languages, the author claims numerous legislative acts remain untranslated in Afrikaans, leading to discriminatory access to laws for non-English proficient citizens. The author pursued domestic remedies, initiating legal proceedings and filing complaints, but faced dismissals from courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court. The Communication highlights the arbitrary and selective nature of the translation process, adversely affecting various South African languages.

The author asserts that the State party violates its obligations under article 2 (1) and (2) of the Covenant by neglecting to translate national legislation into all official languages and failing to justify the necessity of this practice. Additionally, he argues that the State’s arbitrary approach to translation constitutes language-based discrimination, breaching article 26 of the Covenant. As a lawyer with Afrikaans-speaking clients, he contends that the State’s refusal to translate legislation hampers his ability to represent them effectively, resulting in discrimination under article 14. Furthermore, he claims that this practice unjustly impedes the maintenance and development of Afrikaans’ official status, violating article 27. Finally, he asserts that the State has not provided an effective remedy to address language discrimination, contravening article 2 (3) of the Covenant.

The author requests the Committee to direct the State party to adopt measures for the expeditious translation of new legislation into all official languages within five years and prioritize translating past core legislation within the same timeframe.

Admissibility

The Committee finds these claims inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation, as the author hasn’t provided specific details on personal adverse effects resulting from the alleged failure to translate legislation. Consequently, the Committee deems the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. The decision will be communicated to the State party and the author.