Simultaneous Interpreting: Self-Correction and Number Error in Arbitration
You are in the Russian booth at a remote ICC arbitration hearing conducted in English and Russian. The tribunal has ordered simultaneous interpretation; the witness is testifying from Moscow. Claimant's counsel speaks quickly: 'Under Article 74 - sorry, Article 34 - the respondent failed to give notice by 17 March 2021, and our client lost $4.75 million.' You render the self-correction and numbers, but the opposing Russian-speaking party's counsel later says on the record that the Russian channel said '4.57 million' and '2020'. The stenographer asks whether to correct the transcript. The arbitral tribunal asks the booth to confirm. There is no recording of the Russian channel, only the English court reporter's log. The session has 25 minutes left before the next witness.
1. How do you handle a self-correction like 'Article 74 - sorry, Article 34' in simultaneous mode?
Read the worked answer
I would preserve the repair rather than silently delete the first number. In simultaneous mode I would say: 'Согласно статье 74 - поправка, статье 34...' or 'По статье 74, прошу прощения, 34...' That tells the Russian listener that the speaker changed the reference and avoids creating a false impression that only Article 34 was ever said. If the correction comes too late, I would use the next short pause to say 'поправка: статья 34' once, without replaying the whole sentence.
The key judgment is that a self-correction is part of the source message. Dropping '74' may make the Russian record cleaner but less accurate. Repeating both numbers is acceptable in simultaneous mode when the speaker has explicitly repaired the reference; adding an explanation of what the articles mean is not.
2. A number error is alleged. What correction protocol do you propose, and what do you not do?
Read the worked answer
I would ask the tribunal to pause briefly and check the English floor recording, since the English log is the primary source. I would compare the source phrase with my booth notes and state only what I can verify: 'The English floor says 4.75 million and 17 March 2021. The Russian booth will correct the record accordingly.' I would ask the stenographer to enter a correction on the record: 'Russian interpretation corrected: $4.75 million, 17 March 2021.'
I would not invent a memory of what the Russian channel said, blame the opposing counsel, or argue that the error was harmless. I would also not change the English transcript, which belongs to the court reporter. If no Russian recording exists, the correction should be noted as a booth correction based on the floor recording and contemporaneous notes, not presented as a verbatim replay.
3. Counsel uses 'without prejudice' and 'best efforts' in the same passage. How do you render them into Russian without overstating?
Read the worked answer
For 'without prejudice' I would use 'без ущерба для прав' in a settlement or rights-preserving context, and I would not add 'конфиденциально' unless the source says confidential. The phrase is function-specific; if the context is a settlement offer, 'в порядке переговоров без ущерба для прав' may be clearer, but I would keep it short in simultaneous mode. I would not render it as 'без предубеждения,' which sounds like bias rather than reservation of rights.
For 'best efforts' I would say 'максимальные усилия' or 'наилучшие усилия,' not 'обязан любым способом' or 'гарантирует результат.' The English phrase is generally a standard of effort, not an absolute guarantee, and Russian legal usage may prefer 'разумные усилия' only if the source says 'reasonable efforts.' I would preserve the distinction between effort and result and flag it later if the tribunal asks for a technical gloss.