Los inicios del imperio de Antonio López (1849-1868)

Research concerning the use of VC systems in legal proceedings has been mainly carried out in immigration tribunals and criminal courts. In his report commissioned by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ellis (2004) assesses the viability of VC equipment during refugee hearings. His mandate was to examine the impact on technologies on the fairness of VC hearings through interviews with legal counsel and on-line surveys with a range of participants. It is interesting to note that although this study’s focus was not primarily on IMEs, it differs from those mentioned in a monolingual setting15 _{as fifty-one interpreters, working in VCI} A, were still invited to take part in the on-line survey. Out of these, sixteen

interpreters responded to his on-line questionnaire. Although he calls for further empirical studies assessing the impact of VCI on immigration hearings, his study comes up with findings similar to those conducted in RI or TI. Overall, he reports

28 that interpreters have very mixed feelings as far as VCI is concerned. These

interpreters acknowledge that VCI is a means to make better use of the Immigration and Refugee Board’s limited resources. However, as other legal professionals participating in the survey mentioned, the sixteen interpreters express the following concerns: VCI is an impersonal means of communication (more time is spent on asking for repetition/ body language and emotions do not come through); it is impossible to control the speech delivery speed; interpreters encountered technical issues (mainly relating to audio/video quality or lack of trained staff/technical support); interpreters feel more fatigue, and the hearing tends to last longer. It is important to note that the interpreters do not agree in unison on all of these points. Unfortunately, Ellis (2004)’s data do not allow further analysis that would enable gaining a better understanding as to why the

interpreters do not agree. Similarly, and within the same field of expertise, the British Bail for Immigration Detainees and the British Refugee Council (2008) also commissioned a report that examines VC hearings in Asylum and Immigration Tribunals. Their conclusions and recommendations align with those in Ellis (2004)’s report discussed above. It is highlighted that body language can be distorted on screen (hence a difficulty in reading intimacy cues), that bail

applicants can request to have an in-person hearing (if they have grounds), and that the technology used must be efficient. The report also refers specifically to the use of interpreters in VCI. During their observations, they were concerned that “27% of applicants who used an interpreter did not have everything interpreted” (Bail for Immigration Detainees and the British Refugee Council, 2008, p. 3). It is therefore recommended that the judge must ensure that interpreters interpret everything, despite the fact that the interpreter and the bail applicant are “physically disconnected” (Bail for Immigration Detainees and British Refugee Council, 2008, p.10). Although the findings in both reports share many similarities, Canada and the UK seem to take a different stance as to where the interpreter is located. Indeed, in Canada it is recommended that the interpreter be co-present with the detainee (and therefore interpreting via VCI B), whereas in the UK, it appears that the interpreter is located in court (and therefore interpreting via VCI A), at least in immigration bail hearings.

29 In a criminal court context Fowler (2007, 2012, 2013) examines the use of VC systems during hearings in Magistrates’ Courts. Her studies are based on various ethnographical observations and interviews with several court actors (interpreters, magistrates, prosecutors, defence advocates, and court clerks), and they cover research grounds similar to those mentioned previously (e.g.: use of equipment, working conditions, and interaction management). However, Fowler also sheds new light on research in VCI by examining the seating positions and sightlines, and tracking the speakers. Her focus is on the behaviour and the interaction that take place in face-to-face and VCI hearings. Based on her case studies, Fowler (2012, 2013) devises a continuum whereby she argues that the interpreter is the least visible in VCI A when she interprets in whispered simultaneous and

consecutive modes. However, court interpreters working in full-volume

consecutive mode are the most visible. Interestingly, it could be argued that these findings are similar in face-to-face hearings where an interpreter would be the least visible when whispering simultaneously from the dock, whereas she would be much more visible when interpreting consecutively for a witness giving

evidence from the witness box. Furthermore, some of the data include reference to immigration hearings (that are not part of Magistrates’ Courts), and she

examines only VCI A types of hearings focusing solely on defendants, which reflects the situation advocated in the Bail for Immigration Detainees and the British Refugee Council (2008)’s report. However, it leaves unexplored the fact that witnesses can testify in VCI A, or that interpreters can be co-present with the defendant in prison (as will be discussed in Chapter 6).

Finally, Devaux (2017) examines the interpreter’s ethical rationalisation process when VC equipment is used in interpreter-mediated criminal court hearings. He argues that court interpreters in his sample only rationalise ethics through the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (2011)’s Code of Professional Conduct. However, the use of VC equipment creates ethical dilemmas that can be specific to VCI A or VCI B modes (such as emotional detachment or technical issues). As the Code of Professional Conduct does not cater for the use of such equipment, he argues that court interpreters are ill-equipped to rationalise ethical dilemmas through deontology, but court interpreters should consider other ethics paradigms, namely consequentialism, moral sentiments, and virtue ethics. His

30 studies signal a new avenue for research that was not considered in previous studies. However, due to the rather low number of participants (three court interpreters took part), further research which includes a larger number of court interpreters is required into the field of ethics and VCI.

Overall, the use of VCI has been explored through similar paradigms adopted in monolingual settings or in TI and RI. Indeed, research in VCI explores technical difficulties, for instance the impact of VCI on the interaction and on the

interpreter’s working environment. Findings bear a striking resemblance with studies carried out in a monolingual setting or in RI in the sense that equipment in VCI can be faulty, or the use of VCI can impair the working relationship between court actors. However, it is also worth noting that research areas specific to the use of VCI (for instance, ethical dilemmas or preferences on using VCI A or VCI B) have also emerged.

Notwithstanding the above studies in VCI, it is posited that most of the research in VCI in legal settings was carried out as part of the Avidicus projects that are discussed further in the next sub-section.