Historical errors in court translation that changed the course of legal cases

1. The Treaty of Waitangi (New Zealand, 1840) 

One of the most notorious errors in the history of judicial translations occurred with the Treaty of Waitangi, an agreement signed in 1840 between the British Crown and the Maori chiefs of New Zealand. This treaty was intended to establish the basis for British colonization of the country and to define the rights of the Maori. However, the English version and the Maori version contained critical differences. In the English version, absolute sovereignty was transferred to the Crown, while the Maori version spoke more of "governance", a much more limited concept. 

This discrepancy led to conflicts over the interpretation of the treaty, as the Maori believed they were retaining their autonomy while the British assumed full control. The consequences of this error have resonated for over a century, as it has been the basis of numerous legal disputes between the New Zealand government and indigenous peoples. Although in recent years redress has been sought through compensation and negotiations, the translation error in the treaty remains a matter of deep controversy. 

2. The case of the "Machine Gun" in the United States (1978) 

In 1978, an illegal arms importation case in the United States was severely affected by an error in the translation of a key technical term, which changed the course of the trial significantly. The dispute arose from the translation of a manual on an Italian "machine gun," which in English was misinterpreted as "automatic machine." The defense argued that the term referred to a mechanical tool, i.e. a machine for industrial use, while the prosecution insisted that the term should be interpreted as an automatic weapon, directly associating the defendant with criminal activities. This misunderstanding led to his initial conviction. However, the defendant successfully appealed, claiming that the technical misinterpretation had unfairly influenced his sentence. This case illustrates how an error in the translation of specialized terms can not only influence the outcome of a trial, but also compromise an individual's rights and liberty, highlighting the need for accurate understanding in judicial contexts. 

It also highlights how the misinterpretation of technical terms in sectors such as weaponry can have profound legal repercussions. In cases such as this, the difference between a power tool and a deadly weapon can hinge on a simple word, and inaccurate translation can lead to unfair and severe consequences. 

3. The Richard Oetker Extradition Case (Germany, 1976) 

In 1976, Richard Oetker, a young German businessman, was the victim of a kidnapping that shocked Germany. After his release, the kidnapper was captured in Denmark. However, the extradition process to Germany faced serious obstacles due to an error in the translation of the charges in the extradition request. The Danish authorities misinterpreted the term "Grievous Bodily Harm," which led to confusion about the seriousness of the crime and caused significant delays in the surrender of the criminal. Although the misunderstanding was eventually rectified and the kidnapper extradited, this case demonstrated how a simple translation error in legal documents can significantly complicate and prolong the judicial process, affecting prompt access to justice. 

This incident not only exposed the vulnerability of international legal systems to linguistic errors, but also how an inaccuracy in the interpretation of legal terms can influence the perception of the crime and thus the response of the authorities. The correction of the error allowed the extradition to proceed, but the delay caused highlighted the importance of having specialized translators in such critical contexts. Accurate translation is key to avoid misunderstandings that could negatively affect the course of justice. 

4. The U.S.-Soviet SALT I Agreement (1972) 

The SALT I Agreement was a landmark treaty signed between the United States and the Soviet Union to limit nuclear armament during the Cold War. However, the interpretation of some technical terms in the two versions of the agreement led to subsequent diplomatic problems. The word "deployment," which in English refers to the placement of weaponry, was translated into Russian in a more ambiguous way, creating confusion over whether certain missile systems were allowed under the treaty. 

This technical misinterpretation did not cause an immediate conflict, but it generated tensions between the two superpowers in the years that followed. Fortunately, diplomatic teams from both countries worked to clarify the terms before the confusion escalated, avoiding a potential major conflict. This case underscores the importance of accuracy in the translation of technical terms in international treaties, where every word can have significant geopolitical implications.