I am amazed by the story even from a legal point of view.
A rape (like the example of murder above) has more than one element that must proven-- what happened in physical terms and whether there was consent-- a disposition of the victim. In order to establish this disposition the victim and any witnesses have to share both knowledge of the physical events and her disposition. I say what I think a few others are getting at here that it is not a fair trial if a person cannot use their own language and make their own assertions about not only what happened but if it was a rape or not.
As for the requirement to prove the description of events rather than make assertions about disposition one does not replace the other. So the fact that the witness/victim must explain what happened in detail is not in conflict with her right to also explain her disposition and make her allegations of what really happened.
One of the social functions of a trail is to face and confront the abuser. If the victim is denied control of her own characterization of the event then that is a further victimization and a denial of due process. And yes, victims need due process as much as the accused.
I agree with those who say the Judge is not fit to be a lawyer or any officer of a court (never mind a judge) if there is a lack of understanding about all this.
[ 12 September 2007: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]