No oath rule reaches the interpreter at a Taiwan police station: what the record can and cannot fix

"An interpreter must be qualified and must give an oath or affirmation to make a true translation." That is Rule 604 of the Federal Rules of Evidence in US federal courts. Taiwan asks much the same of interpreters who work for its prosecutors and judges. At a police station, none of the provisions the Code of Criminal Procedure applies there contains an oath.

So if an interview at a Taiwan police station was interpreted badly, what can still be put right, and with which tool?

Where the oath rules stop

The duty to provide an interpreter is in Article 99. It covers a defendant who does not understand the language and, under paragraph 2, other people being questioned, unless another law provides otherwise. That article sits in the chapter on questioning defendants, and Article 100-2 carries that whole chapter over to police questioning of suspects. Taiwan has also given the ICCPR domestic legal effect (Implementation Act, Article 2), and its Article 14(3)(f) promises free interpreting to a defendant who cannot understand or speak the language used in court (Chinese text published by the Ministry of Justice).

Nowhere in that chapter is there an oath. An expert witness swears before giving an opinion that it will be fair and honest (Article 202), and Article 211 applies that section, on expert witnesses and interpreters, to interpreters. Article 100-2 does not borrow it.

Perjury follows the same line. Criminal Code Article 168 punishes a witness, expert or interpreter who, under an oath taken before or after speaking, states something false on a materially relevant point, with up to seven years' imprisonment. Its wording names two settings: a court proceeding and a prosecutor's investigation.

The recorder, though, is running.

What the recording keeps

Recording is part of the borrowed chapter, so it reaches the police station. Questioning must be audio-recorded continuously from start to finish, with video too where necessary, unless an urgent situation is noted in the record. Where the defendant's statement as written departs from what the recording holds, the part that does not match cannot be used as evidence, subject to that same noted urgency (Article 100-1).

For an unsworn interpreter's errors, this is the provision with teeth. It works by comparing the written statement with the recording. How a particular discrepancy is treated is argued in the case itself.

Getting to the recording is a further step. At trial, defense counsel may inspect the file and exhibits and copy, reproduce or photograph them, and a defendant may pay for copies, subject to limits the court can set (Article 33).

Before you sign: the statement record

Article 41 governs how the written record (筆錄) is finished, and Article 43-1 applies it to police questioning. The record has to be read aloud or shown to the person questioned, who is asked whether anything in it is wrong. A defense lawyer present may help a defendant go through it and say whether it is accurate. Additions, deletions or changes requested by the person questioned or by that lawyer are appended. The signature, seal or fingerprint goes directly under the last line; a refusal is noted with the reason.

Three pages of Chinese, returned in English as four sentences (an invented example). Nobody signing can tell from that what fell out. What Article 41 does allow is a note in the record that the read-back was a summary and which parts could not be checked.

That note has limits. It does not put the interpreter under oath after the fact, and it is not a finding that anything was mistranslated. It shows that the problem was raised, by whom, and before the signature.

Time spent waiting for an interpreter is built into the arrest clock. Up to six hours of that wait is left out of the 24 hours after arrest, and no questioning may take place during it (Article 93-1, paragraph 1, item 6, and paragraph 2). How the 24 hours work is explained in taken to a Taiwan police station.

Once a prosecutor or judge takes over

Here the oath appears. An interpreter now swears, before interpreting, to be fair and honest (Articles 202 and 211). If one is not sworn, the record must say why (Article 41, paragraph 1, item 2). False interpretation on a material point after that oath falls within Article 168.

Who takes the oath? Ministry of Justice guidelines on interpreters in criminal cases at prosecutors' offices start with the office's own staff interpreters and turn to contract interpreters when staff are unsuitable or too few (point 4). In a complicated case a prosecutor may appoint two or more interpreters, with a second one present throughout to watch the accuracy of the first (point 5). When someone being questioned brings their own interpreter, the prosecutor is to check that person's identity, interpreting ability and relationship to the person questioned, and ask the views of the others being questioned, before appointing them (point 7). Point 3 suggests telling people in the summons or notice that they may ask for an interpreter. The contract lists are sorted by language and include English, both at the high prosecutors' offices (roster rules, points 2 and 8) and at the courts (Rules on Court Contract Interpreters, Articles 3 and 9).

A challenge has a deadline built in. After the interpreter has done the interpreting, no challenge is allowed unless the ground arose, or came to light, later (Article 200, paragraph 2, applied by Article 211). The grounds are those for asking a judge to step aside: listed relationships, such as being the spouse or a relative of the defendant or the victim (Article 17), and other circumstances showing a risk of bias (Article 18, item 2). Having been a witness in the same case is not enough on its own (Article 200, paragraph 1, proviso). Who may raise it? The parties, which Article 3 defines as the prosecutor, a private prosecutor and the defendant.

Help in Taipei

Once someone is held in a detention center, the center must, on request, help them meet and correspond with diplomatic or consular officers or others representing their country (Detention Act, Article 59, paragraph 2). AIT's arrest page does not list interpreting among the help it offers. What AIT and local defense counsel each do is set out in a US citizen arrested in Taiwan, and the wider rights in a police interview, including counsel, in summoned by Taiwan police or prosecutors as a foreigner.

A Taiwan lawyer can sit in on the police interview (Article 245, paragraph 2; presence can be limited or barred on listed grounds such as a risk of evidence being destroyed, with the reason recorded) and go through the read-back with you, have objections about the interpreting appended before you sign, compare the record with the recording once the file is open and argue for excluding parts that do not match, and raise a timely challenge to an interpreter before a prosecutor or judge. Hovering International Law Firm (昊鼎國際法律事務所) has an English-speaking lawyer in Taipei. Email wei@hoveringlaw.com.tw; the Taipei office is at 7F-2, No. 35, Sec. 1, Chengde Rd., Datong Dist., Taipei 103 (103臺北市大同區承德路一段35號7樓之2). Criminal work is described on the criminal defense page.

At a Taiwan police station no provision of the Code puts the interpreter under oath, but the questioning is ordinarily recorded from the first question, and the record waits for your signature.

Sources

Checked October 26, 2026.

• Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法): Art. 3, Art. 17, Art. 18, Art. 33, Art. 41, Art. 43-1, Art. 93-1, Art. 99, Art. 100-1, Art. 100-2, Art. 200, Art. 202, Art. 211, Art. 245
• Criminal Code (中華民國刑法), Art. 168
• Act to Implement the ICCPR and ICESCR (公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法), Art. 2; ICCPR Chinese text, Ministry of Justice
• Rules on Court Contract Interpreters (法院特約通譯約聘辦法): Art. 3, Art. 9
• Ministry of Justice: guidelines on interpreters in criminal cases at prosecutors' offices, points 3, 4, 5 and 7; contract interpreter rosters at high prosecutors' offices, points 2 and 8
• Detention Act (羈押法), Art. 59
• AIT: Arrest of a U.S. citizen
• Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 604 (United States Courts, as amended to December 1, 2025)