What can you do with a multilingual treaty in litigation in the United States? All foreign language documents filed in federal court proceedings must be translated into English. Federal Rule of Evidence 604 provides that an “interpreter is subject to the provisions of these rules relating to the qualification of expert.” The rule has been extended to translators, allowing them to qualify as experts in accordance with the federal rule of evidence 702. In many cases, the parties offer different translators with opinions that claim that the reliability of another`s translation is wrong. Why is this necessary? The treaty law of most nations follows the well-known principle that there must be a meeting of minds to establish a binding treaty. If it does not exist, there is no contract. Each foreign nation has different rules as to whether to prove what is admissible as evidence if one demonstrates what the parties understood they received in the benefit of the agreement. Many laws allow the use of parol evidence. For example, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods allows the courts: Which apply “all relevant circumstances” of the treaty – this would apply both to the contract in the original language and to the translation (cf. z.B. MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc.
v. Ceramica Nuova D`Agostino, S.p.A., 144 F.3d 1384 (11th Cir. 1998)). The use of Parol evidence is even more applicable when the translation has been signed by both parties and the translation has dealt with a topic or scenario that appears to have eroded the original language. . . .