Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Assumptions and Unintended Meanings Before International and Hybrid Criminal Courts: Effects on Trial Proceedings and Defense Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Rule of Law in an Era of Change

Part of the book series: Springer Series on International Justice and Human Rights ((SSIJHR))

  • 436 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter considers the accuracy of interpretations and, to some extent, translations in international and hybrid criminal courts settings and looks at the effects of both linguistic and paralinguistic (nonverbal) misinterpretations on the effectiveness of the international criminal process and, in particular, the effects these can have on the quality of trials, procedural fairness, and ultimately defense rights. Specifically, the rights to seek and expect from international criminal courts and tribunals competent and effective language services, as well as the corresponding right to review translated transcripts and relevant documents, are considered here. As this chapter tries to demonstrate, the protection and further development of these specific rights are essential to the requirements of procedural fairness alongside the rights to equality before the law, equality of arms, and the right to a fair trial. Although statutes and rules of international courts and tribunals assert that equal treatment before the law, as recognized in international human rights law, requires that there be no significant disparity in trial and punishment regimes in individual cases, there remain considerable outcome problems in these complex multilingual and multicultural settings. Right to equality before the law and the right to a fair trial are examined here with a particular reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1996 (ICCPR) Article 14. Case law reveals in fact that equal and equitable protection of fundamental procedural pretrial and trial rights remains inconsistent and that the determination of the nature of ICCPR provisions is contradictory. Given the complexity of most international criminal trials, some practical interpretation and translations problems may be readily recognized and anticipated. Nevertheless, the responsibility to fully explore reasons and conditions that lead to potentially procedurally and ethically unjust trial outcomes rests on the judiciary. The responsibility to provide effective remedies in individual cases rests on them too. Importantly, these courts and tribunals are based and legitimized on the basis of their legal foundations and principles deriving from the rule of law, such as independence, transparency, and accountability. In turn, the rule of law increasingly requires that international justice is administered by applying norms that promote and protect elevated, and not just minimum, human rights standards and fundamental values of equality, fairness, and justice. By analyzing statutes and rules of procedure and evidence of international courts and their proceedings as well as studying court transcripts and simultaneous translations in different international criminal law jurisdictions (mainly the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Court), the chapter examines whether the review of court transcripts in the second (translated) language could amount to a procedural right in international criminal law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is the case for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The official language of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) is only English.

  2. 2.

    H. Morrison, Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) Questionnaire for ICC Judicial Candidates, December 2011 Elections; G. A. Henderson (CICC, November 2013 Elections and C. Eboe-Osuji (CICC, 2009 Elections).

  3. 3.

    C. Chung, (CICC, December 2014 Elections).

  4. 4.

    See, e.g., R.C. Pangalangan (CICC, June 2015 Elections); G. A. Henderson (CICC, November 2013 Elections); and P. Hofmanski (CICC, December 2014 Elections).

  5. 5.

    Morrison, supra, note 3.

  6. 6.

    Studies dealing with the permanence, regularity, and systematization of ICC so far (Byrne 2007; Karton 2008, Nettelfield 2010; P&V International Team of the European Commission 2012) have produced valid theoretical assumptions in this field, but none of these have been proved empirically with the exception of Namakula (2013), who analyzed transcripts and conducted semi-structured interviews focusing on conversational analysis of courtroom discourse. She focused on data from the International Crimes Division of the High Court of Uganda. However, she has not compared bilingual versions of “identical” texts and has not undergone scrutiny of linguistic investigation into her data, which would supposedly support existing theoretical assumptions.

  7. 7.

    UN Doc. GAOR, A/53/40/, pp. 20–21, para.104.

  8. 8.

    When charged with a criminal offence, Art. 6 (3) (a) provides for a right to be informed promptly, in a language the suspect understands, and in detail, of the nature of cause of the charges against him.

  9. 9.

    See, e.g., American Convention on Human Rights, Art, 8 (1).

  10. 10.

    See also Principle 14 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment 1988.

  11. 11.

    See also, e.g., American Convention on Human Rights, Art. 8 (2) (a). General Comment No. 13 (Article 14), United Nations Compilation of General Comments, p. 125, para.13 provides that this right is independent on the outcome of the case.

  12. 12.

    United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR), Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors, and Lawyers (2003), Chapter 6, p. 12.

  13. 13.

    Prosecutor v Karadzic, Case No. IT-95-5/18, Public Transcript, 12 February 2014, p. 46893, at 2.

  14. 14.

    Ibid. Public Transcript, 09 December 2013, p. 44785, at 11.

  15. 15.

    Kamasinski v Austria, No. 9783/82, Judgment, 19 December 1989, para. 74.

  16. 16.

    In relation to “effective legal assistance” under ECHR Art. 6 (3) (e), see supra note 11, Chap. 7, p. 17.

  17. 17.

    ICJ Statute, Art 70 (2) of the Rules provides that the Registrar shall make arrangements for the verification of the interpretation provided by a party of evidence given on the party’s behalf. In the case of witnesses or experts who appear at the instance of the Court, arrangements for interpretation shall be made by the Registry.

  18. 18.

    Report of the Court on options for outsourcing translation work, ICC-ASP/7/5, 26 May 2008, para. 13.

  19. 19.

    See, e.g., Conflict Zone Field Guide for Civilian Translators/Interpreters and Users of their Services 2012. www.fit-ift.org/wp-content/uploads.2013/03/T-I_Field_Guide_2012.pdf. Accessed 24 August 2017.

  20. 20.

    Prosecutor v Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Transcript, May 7, 1996, at 47.

  21. 21.

    R v Tran (1994) 117 DLR 7, p. 40.

  22. 22.

    R v Iqbal Begum (1991) 93 Cr App R 96, p. 100.

  23. 23.

    Judicial Systems Monitoring Programme (JSMP), Justice in Practice: Human Rights in Court Administration – JSMP Thematic Report 1(Dili: JSMP), 2001.

  24. 24.

    Amnesty International 2008. Kosovo (Serbia) - The challenge to fix a failed UN justice system arose (January 2008), AI: EUR 70/001/2008, p. 51.

  25. 25.

    Supra note 11, Chap. 6, pp. 21–23.

  26. 26.

    See, e.g., Report on programme performance of the International Criminal Court for the year 2007, ICC-ASP/7/8/, p. 39.

  27. 27.

    Human Rights Committee, 2007. General Comment No.32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and the fair trial, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007).

  28. 28.

    Prosecutor v Delalic et al., ex parte Zdravko Mucic, Case No. IT-96-21, Decision on the Motion Ex Parte by the Defense of Zdravko Mucic Concerning the Issue of a Subpoena to an Interpreter, 08 July 1997.

  29. 29.

    See National Agreement on Arrangements for the Use of Interpreters, Translators and Language Service Professionals in Interrogations and Proceedings within the Criminal Justice System, 2007.

  30. 30.

    R (Bozturk) v Thames Magistrates’ Court, Time Law Reports, 26 June 2001.

  31. 31.

    See, e.g., Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, Sec. 19 (3) (b).

  32. 32.

    ICC Statute (Arts. 55 (1) (c) and 67 (1) (f)), ICTY Statute (Arts. 18 (3) and 21 (4) (f)), ICTR Statute (Arts. 17 (3) and 20 (4) (f)) and the SCSL Statute (Art. 17 (4) (d)).

  33. 33.

    Human Rights Committee 2007, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and for a fair trial, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007). See also Art. 2 (8) EU Directive 2010/64/EU on Fair Trial: suspects’ rights to itnerpretation and translation in criminal proceedings which provides that interpretation must of ‘’sufficient quality to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.”

  34. 34.

    For example, Ntaganda, Case No. ICC_01/04-02/06, Decision Requesting Observations from the Interpretation and Translation Section, 19 Sept. 2013).

  35. 35.

    Lubanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Registry report on interpretation matters, 15 July 2009, para. 4.

  36. 36.

    AIIC – United Nations Agreement (2012–2017). Agreement between the United Nations Common System/Chief Executives Board for Coordination and the Association Internationale des Interpretes de Conference, regulating the Conditions of Employment. https://aiic.net/page6394/un-latest-version-of-the-agreement-2012-2017/lang/1. Accessed 24 August 2017.

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    Supra note 11, Chap. 7, p. 24.

  39. 39.

    See, e.g., Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment 1988, Principle 14.

  40. 40.

    Decision on the Motions on the Fair Trial and Extensions of Time, Case No. IT-04-82-PT, 19 May 2006, para. 13.

  41. 41.

    Case No. ICC-02/05-03/09, Order to the Prosecution and the Registry on Translation Issues, 07 September 2011.

  42. 42.

    According to the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 32, what amounts to a considerable delay should be decided objectively but on a case-by-case, taking into account the complexity of the case, the relevant conduct of the accused person and that of the competent authority (Chap. 7, p. 11).

  43. 43.

    Defense Submission of the Translation of Incriminatory Evidence, Case No. ICC-02/05-03/09-195, 08 August 2011, paras. 2 and 3.

  44. 44.

    ICC Statute Art. 67 (1) (f) See also The Prosecutor v Bahr Idriss Abu Garda, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Request for Extension of Time-Limit, ICC-02/05-02/09-98, 11 September 2009, p. 59. Here the confirmation of charges hearing was postponed so that the suspect with a list of evidence and witness statements in Arabic, the suspect’s native language and importantly, one of the Court’s official languages.

  45. 45.

    Defense Response to the Report of the Registrar on the Provision of Lingala Interpretation for Germain Katanga at the Trial Stage, ICC-01/04-01/07, 04 February 2009, para. 3.

  46. 46.

    Supra note 11, Chap. 7, p. 16.

  47. 47.

    ICC-01/04-01/07-522, paras. 61–62.

  48. 48.

    Defence Response to the Report of the Registrar on the Provision of Lingala Interpretation for Germain Katanga at the Trial Stage, ICC-01/04-01/07, 04 February 2009, para.6.

  49. 49.

    Report of The Registrar on the Provision of Lingala Interpretation for Germain Katanga at the Trial Stage, Trial Chamber II, ICC-01/04-01/07, 21 January 2008, para. 23.

  50. 50.

    Appeals Chamber, “Judgment on the appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the decision of PreTrial Chamber I entitled “Decision on the Defence Request Concerning Languages”, ICC-01/04-01/07-522, para.59.

  51. 51.

    The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo, Report of The Registrar on the Provision of Lingala Interpretation for Germain Katanga at the Trial Stage, Trial Chamber II, ICC-01/04-01/07, 21 January 2008, para.20.

  52. 52.

    ICC Statute, Art. 64 (3) (b) and ICC Rule 41 (2).

  53. 53.

    See also The Prosecutor v William Samoci Ruto et al., Registry’s assessment of Mr. Joshua Arap Sang’s English Proficiency Level, ICC-01/09-01/11, 31 March 2011.

  54. 54.

    See, e.g., Lubunto v Zambia, Communication No. 390/1990, U.N. Doc. GAOR, A/51/40 (vol.II), p. 14, para. 7.3. See also Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) 2015, Rules 61 and 80.

  55. 55.

    Case No. IT-98-34-T, Decision on defense’s motion concerning translation of all documents, Order, 18 October 2001.

  56. 56.

    Lagerblom v Sweden, ECtHR (2003), Application No. 26891/95, 14 March 2003, para. 61.

  57. 57.

    See also Arts. 3(1) and (2) of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1987.

  58. 58.

    Prosecutor v Prlic et al., Case No. IT-04-74-T, Decision on Slobodan Praljak’s Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s 13 October 2008 Order Limiting the Translation of Defense Evidence, 05 December 2008, para. 11.

  59. 59.

    Prosecutor v Momir Nikolic, Case No. IT-02-60/1-A, 08 March 2008, Judgment on Sentencing Appeal.

  60. 60.

    Prosecutor v Halilovic Sefer, Case No. IT-01-48, Judgment, 16 November 2005, p. 83.

  61. 61.

    Public Transcript of Hearing, 21 April 2005, p. 64, paras.5–10.

  62. 62.

    Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment, 02 September 1998, para. 589.

  63. 63.

    Ninth ICC-ASP Bureau Meeting, 29 April 2010.

  64. 64.

    Public Transcript of Hearing 04 July 2007, pp. 1306–1307.

  65. 65.

    Article 18 of the Agreement between the UN and Sierra Leone 2002 requires that English be the official language of the Special Court.

  66. 66.

    Report of the Secretary-General on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, 04 October 2000, S/2000/915, para.59.

  67. 67.

    See UN Security Council, “The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-conflict Societies” – Report of the Secretary General, 23 August 2004, UN Doc. No. S/2004/616, at 4, para. 6. See also the recently adopted 17 Sustainable Goals (2015–2030) by the General Assembly, Goal 16 (3) – “Peace and Justice” targets require the promoting of the rule of law at the national and international level to ensure equal access to justice for all.

Bibliography

  • Adler, B. R., & Ronald, B. (2010). Understanding human communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. (2006). Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian: A grammar with sociolinguistic commentary. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International. (2008). Kosovo (Serbia) – The challenge to fix a failed UN justice system. AI: EUR 70/001/2008. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR70/001/2008/EN/. Accessed 24 Aug 2017.

  • Arzoz, X. (2007). The nature of language rights. Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 2, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk-Seligson, S. (2017). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg-Seligson, S. (2008). Judicial systems in contact. Access to justice and the right to interpreting/translating services among the Quichua in Ecuador, Interpreting, 10, 9–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohlander, M. (2007). International criminal justice: A critical analysis of institutions and procedures. London: Cameron May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Blake, C. (2006). Fair trial, language and the right to interpretation. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 13, 391–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buring, D. (2016). Intonation and meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, R. (2007). Assessing testimonial evidence in asylum proceedings: Guiding standards from the international criminal tribunals. International Journal of Refugee Law, 19, 609–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candlin, N. C., & Gotti, M. (2007). Intercultural aspects of specialized communication. Bern: Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernov, V., & Gelly, V. (2004). Inference and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting: A probability-prediction model. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coan, B., & Christian, C. (2000). Rethinking the spoils of war: Prosecuting rape as a war crime in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 26, 183–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Combs, A. N. (2010). Fact-finding without facts. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language and evidence. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieter, S., et al. (2008). Law and language: Theory and society. Dusseldorf: Dusseldorf University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieter, S., Olsen, F., & Lorz, A. (2009). Translation issues in language and law. Chippenham and Eastbourne: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dojcinovic, P. (2012). Word scene investigations: Toward a cognitive linguistic approach to the criminal analysis of open source evidence in war crimes trials. In P. Dojcinovic (Ed.), Propaganda, war crimes trials and international law; from speakers’ corner to war crimes (pp. 71–117). Routledge: Oxon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eades, D. (1995). Language and evidence: Issues confronting aboriginal and multicultural Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the legal process. In Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias-Bursac, E. (2015). Translating evidence and interpreting testimony at a war crimes tribunal. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Engberg, J. (2002). Legal meaning assumptions – What are the consequences for legal interpretation and legal translation? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 15, 375–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ephratt, M. (2011). Linguistic, paralinguistic and extralinguistic speech and silence. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2286–2307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filipovic, L. (2013). Constructing causation in language and memory: Implications for access to justice in multilingual interactions. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 20, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, T. J. (1978). Jury behaviour – A psychologist examines jury selection. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 5, 571–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaiba, F. (1998). The origins of simultaneous interpretations: The Nuremberg trial. Ottawa: Ottawa University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garces, C. V. (1996). Linguistic and paralinguistic aspects in legal interpretation: Some strategies and programs. Revista de Estudios Ingleses, 9, 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, J., & Turell, T. M. (2008). Dimensions of forensic linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heanel, F. (1997). Aspects and problems associated with the use of interpreters in psychotherapy of victims of torture. Torture, 7, 68–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karton, J. (2008). Lost in translation: International criminal tribunals and the legal implications of interpreted testimony. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 41, 3–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsall, T. (2009). Culture under cross-examination: International justice and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. (2011). Translatability of speech style in courtroom interpreting. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 18, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moosmuller, S. (2011). Evaluation of the speech behaviour of reference speakers. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 18, 179–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R. (1999). The gum syndrome: Predicaments in court interpreting. Forensic Linguistics, 6, 1350–1771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Social cognition: Understanding self and others. New York: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakane, I. (2013). Language rights in Japanese criminal courts: Bridging the gap between legal professionals and language professionals. Asian Studies Review, 37, 302–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namakula, S. C. (2012). Language rights in the minimum guarantees of fair criminal trials. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 19, 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namakula, S. C. (2013). Language and the right to fair hearing in international criminal trials. Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettelfield, L. (2010). Courting democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Hague tribunal’s impact in a post-war state. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nice, G., & Vallieres-Roland, P. (2005). Procedural innovations in war crimes trials. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3, 354–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, S. (2007). Assessing the credibility of refugee applicants: A judicial perspective. International Journal of Refugee Law, 19, 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spears, J. (2003). Sitting in the dock of the day: Applying lessons learned from the prosecution of war criminals and other bad actors in post-conflict Iraq and beyond. Military Law Review, 176, 96–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiersma, P. M., & Solan, L. M. (2016). The Oxford handbook on language and law. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonkin, H., & Esposito, M. F. (2010). The translator as mediator of cultures. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valero-Garces, C. (2005). Emotional and psychological effects on interpretation in public services. Translation Journal. www.translationjournal.net.journal/33ips.htm. Accessed 24 Aug 2017.

  • Villmoare, E. (2008). Ethnic crimes and UN justice in Kosovo: The trial of Igor Simic. Texas International Law Journal, 37, 373–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald, P. (2000). Judging war crimes. Chicago International Law Journal, 1, 189–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald, P. (2001). International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia comes of age: Some observations on day-to-day dilemmas of an international court. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 5, 87–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimanyi, K. (2009). On impartiality and neutrality: A diagrammatic tool as a visual aid. Interpreting & Translation, 1, 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Greenwich, London, UK

    Dragana Spencer

Authors
  1. Dragana Spencer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dragana Spencer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, New York, USA

    George J. Andreopoulos

  2. Department of Sociology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, New York, New York, USA

    Rosemary L. Barberet

  3. School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

    Mahesh K. Nalla

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Spencer, D. (2018). Legal Assumptions and Unintended Meanings Before International and Hybrid Criminal Courts: Effects on Trial Proceedings and Defense Rights. In: Andreopoulos, G., Barberet, R., Nalla, M. (eds) The Rule of Law in an Era of Change. Springer Series on International Justice and Human Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89908-4_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation