Participation of persons with hearing and speech loss in civil proceedings through sign language: comparative legal analysis

2026

Full text Open access: Hybrid Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.46914/2959-4197-2026-1-3-91-109
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This article examines the participation of persons with hearing and speech impairments in civil proceedings through sign language. It addresses the exercise of their procedural rights, including the right to provide explanations, submit motions and evidence, and participate in judicial debates. Particular attention is paid to ensuring equality of participants in civil proceedings and effective access to justice for persons experiencing difficulties in oral communication. The role of sign language interpreters in enabling such persons to participate fully in court proceedings is analyzed, along with practical issues arising from the use of interpretation services. A comparative legal analysis examines approaches to ensuring the participation of persons with hearing and speech impairments in civil proceedings in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, and Azerbaijan. The comparison identifies similarities and differences in the regulation of sign language and interpretation services, as well as procedural safeguards available to these persons. The shortage of qualified sign language interpreters is identified as a practical obstacle to the effective exercise of procedural rights. The article substantiates the need to improve legal and organizational mechanisms for using sign language, expand access to qualified interpretation services, and strengthen procedural safeguards to ensure substantive equality before the law and the courts.