This essay examines the circumstances for interpreters at three different international criminal tribunals – the IMT, the IMTFE, and the ICTR – regarding ethical challenges in adhering to the principles of impartiality, accuracy, and competence. The comparison is based on the personal and professional profiles of the interpreters, as well as the recruitment and training process prior to the tribunals. Concepts such as

positionality, the interpreters' understanding of their role, and their affiliation with specific “sides” involved are mentioned regarding their possible influence on compliance with the ethical principles discussed. The analysis has shown that there are indeed similarities between the trials in Nuremberg, Tokyo, and Arusha in terms of the challenges faced by interpreters in strictly adhering to the three ethical concepts, and

that even in the nearly 50 years between the IMT/IMTFE and the ICTR, some problems seem to persist.