The state Judiciary is proposing standardizing the quality of interpretive services that are offered when people facing a language barrier come before the courts.

Officials asked for public comment on the plan, which would establish a program to certify interpreters as proficient to assist someone in a court proceeding. But the reality is that those most in need of this service are unlikely to testify and must lean on advocates to speak on their behalf.

Those with limited English skills, as well as the deaf and hearing-impaired who rely on someone fluent in sign language, are the beneficiaries of this proposal. Their fair treatment in the courts is essential to their civil rights; ensuring those rights is the responsibility of a democratic society.

Standard protocols for certifying interpreters are overdue, so the Judiciary's proposal is a welcome one. It should be viewed as a work in progress, as oral examinations in various languages are refined.

But some key improvements should be made before the rules are adopted. And there are guidelines to help with these revisions in House Bill 600. The measure got as far as the legislative conference committee, where it stalled. Most of the conferees reached an accord with professional groups on a certification plan.

Under the Judicary's plan, interpreter certification would include basic orientation, written tests in English proficiency and ethics, a criminal record check and an oral examination. Each interpreter is given a ranking by their score.

This is a sensible process, which would help ensure well-qualified interpreters are hired. But the rules are vague on that point, stating the court "may give preference to court interpreters who have been qualified under these rules."

It should be made clear that hiring must be made according to the ranking system.

Also, the rules rightly define the reasons an interpreter may be removed from a case but do not set out how the interpreter can appeal. That should be addressed.

Once the rules are refined, the Judiciary should move quickly to implement a certification program.

The constitutional rights of those who need language access are at stake. They're a sizable group: Almost a quarter of Hawai'i's population speaks a language other than English at home.

Making certain that they are full participants in court proceedings is a matter of justice.