strict and technical rules regarding the admission and exclusion of evidence
System of Admission: selection/admissibility of evidence immediately determined, but weight is determined at a later stage
=> so the jury is not confused and so it doesn’t have an unfair impact on accused (layman, not judges)
flexible approach of “free evaluation”
System of submission: Defer admissibility and weight determinations until later stage/ end of trial as part
of overall evaluation of the evidence
=> allows a huge amount of discretion to judges (because professional judges, not layman)
Founding instruments lack specificity, leaving substantial discretion to the judges
Evidentiary standards are more permissive than common law jurisdictions; because judges adopt free evaluation approach
Benches have judges from both common and civil legal traditions
IMT Charter Art 19 reflects “free evaluation” approach
Move away from reliance on witness testimony
NIMT cases referred to as ‘documentation trials’ (Justice Jackson)
free evaluation approach suited for Nuremburg due to nature of cases; nazi's as methodical record keepers; moved away from witness testimony and focused on hard facts and documentary evidence
Laid the groundwork for future ICL cases
MICT r.105: Not bound by national rules & may admit any evidence it considers to have probative value
ICTY/R had more discretion compared to Nuremberg, because of this optional language
`Opens flood works, but allows them to not admit evidence if not probative
Extensive use of expert witness testimony
Advent of forensic evidence and new technology led to novel forms of evidence: (unless put forward arguments that showed reliability difficulties, not able to raise inadmissibility )
Forensic evidence & satellite imagery at ICTY, e.g. aerial images helped in identification of mass graves (Krstić, Blagojević, Popović et al, and Tolimir)
Radio broadcasts at ICTR, e.g. ‘Media case’ (Nahimana et al) (ICTR radio broadcasts: the tools used by the accused that produced the most valuable evidence at trial
broadcasts recorded & showed as evidence )
Period of rapid technological growth: popularisation of the internet, esp. social media / other interactive web services; widespread use of mobile phones (with cameras and GPS); ability to intercept communications; and rise of drone technology → overabundance of data, almost too much to process at this stage & also publicly accessible
Art 69(4) RS: “the court may rule on the relevance or admissibility of any evidence…”
Similar to ICTY/R provisions
In practice, all evidence submitted, but not admitted until later date when holistically evaluated (See Bemba, noted Chamber’s discretion in choosing between “admission” and "submission”
Initially, OTP's overreliance of witness testimony very criticised, by 2011 better equipped and better evidence (e.g. satellite imagery)
Standard → Confirmation stage: Art 61(7) = “substantial grounds to believe”
documentary or summary evidence is usually enough at this stage
higher than at ICTY/R “prima facie”, concerns about “trial before trial”
Standard → during Trial stage: Art. 66(3) = “beyond reasonable doubt”
Standard is applicable to any facts indispensable for entering a conviction
the fact that exculpatory evidence has not been submitted is not a valid argument (“no doubt”)
ICCst: Art. 57(3)PTC / Art. 64(6) TC
MICT: Rule 55
General power of the Chamber to issue orders necessary for the purposes of an investigation or for the preparation or conduct of the trial.
Art. 56: can grant prosecution authority to record evidence otherwise not available at trial (“unique investigative opportunity”
→ Ongwen (recorded evidence, even before charges were confirmed)
→ only if probative or if risks if available at trial
Art. 67(2) & Rules 76 et seq
MICT Rule 71 & 73
The right to adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence includes timely and full access to evidence – fundamental feature of a fair trial & covers exculpatory and mitigating evidence, and other relevant material
fundamental feature of fair trial (exculpatory and mitigating evidence + any other relevant material)
extensive obligations on prosecutor; if not done in accordance with provisions, can result in dismissal
-> Lubanga = failed disclosure, court collapsed
ICC: Rule 78 & 79
MICT Rule 72
Must allow the Prosecution to inspect documents in their custody which are intended for use during trial & disclosure and notification of the intent to raise an alibi/special defence along with any supporting evidence
similar; disclosure necessary when alibi/special defense
in practice: if introduced at later stage usually still admissible
Bemba → pursuant to Art. 69(4) and Rule 64
Is it relevant to the case? (e.g. direct or indirect evidence)
Does it have probative value? (distinguished from weight –
includes reliability and potential to influence a
determination)
Does it outweigh any prejudicial effect potentially caused by its admission? (if it is prejudicial towards accused, or risky for witness/victims)
Testimonial*
Documentary*
Physical
Forensic
(* = primary focus at ICC)
By virtue of some specialised knowledge, skill or training can assist the Chamber in understanding/ determining an issue in dispute
An expert should:
Not offer an opinion on the criminal liability of the accused
Stay within the confines of their area of expertise
Be impartial, neutral, objective and/or independent
Not be ‘too close’ to the party/case – e.g. Akayesu (tried to get co-defendant to testify)
Allegations of bias addressed through cross-examination
Challenging party may call its own experts on the same issue (this is adversarial, they did this in Ongwen)
Opinion evidence, i.e. conclusions drawn from events they have personally witnessed or from facts with which they are familiar
Summary evidence, i.e. an overview of numerous pieces of evidence /material relevant to the case
Authenticity, relevance and indicia of reliability
Documentary evidence includes e.g.:
Business or government records (Records ordinarily produced in the normal course of business of an organisation or workplace e.g. call data records automatically generated by telecom companies = inherently authentic)
Digital evidence (Information and data stored on, received or transmitted by an electronic device) unless scientific analysis has been applied, then forensic evidence
Authenticity: whether a document is what it professes to be in origin and authorship. A document may be:
Self-authenticating (if official and publicly available);
Agreed upon by parties as being authentic;
Prima facie authentic and reliable due to logo, date, stamp, letterhead etc;
Shown to be authentic/reliable by tendering party through the provision of additional information
Check for (even marginal) relevance of the document to the proceedings, e.g. temporal alignment
Determine its authenticity (check authenticity criteria)
Examine the indicia of reliability: internal inconsistencies; source/author of the document & their role in the events/relationship to the accused or case; chain of custody prior to submission; any other relevant info
→ The party seeking its admission must prove it is prima facie reliable
→ AFTER this, then determine weight
Defining Factor Admissibility Regime
MICT Rule 105: may admit any evidence it considers to have probative value
Unhindered by technical rules & expansive approach to evidence (inquisitorial system) because prof judges
ICC St. Art. 69(4): The Chamber may rule on the admissibility or relevance of evidence, on application of a party or on its own motion & may assess freely all evidence submitted in its determination (R.63(2))
Same flexible approach as the ad hoc tribunals
Raises issues of fairness in complex and varied situations due to length of the proceedings in complex intl trials (less potential for judicial notice)
Chamber has proceeded in favour of system of submission with admissibility being deferred to final deliberation – part of ‘holistic assessment’ of all evidence submitted
Evidence causing prejudicial effect OR if interferes with human rights must be excluded (high standards)
MICT Rule 110: may admit a written statement in lieu of oral testimony which goes to proof of a matter other than the acts and conduct of the accused as charged in the indictment
+Factors in favour of admitting the written statement include:
evidence is of a cumulative nature; relates to historical, political or military background; concerns the impact of crimes upon victims; etc
-Factors against admission: overriding public interest in oral presentation of the evidence; demonstrable unreliability or prejudicial effect; other factors mandating cross-examination
MICT Rules 112-113: covers situations where the witness is unavailable or has been subject to interference
Admission of Written Statements ICC
R68 amended by ASP in light of extensive witness interference in the Kenya case
Art. 69(2) remains the standard. If not able to testify in person, then you refer to R68 if this case warrants an exception
Allows the introduction of prior recorded testimony provided it would (1) not be prejudicial/inconsistent with the rights of the accused AND (2) if 1 or more of the sub-rules are met:
R. 68 (2)(a): Prosecution and Defence had the opportunity to examine the witness during the recording
R. 68 (2)(b): goes to proof of a matter other than the acts and conduct of the accused. Must consider whether: the written testimony relates to issues materially in dispute; is cumulative or corroborative; covers background information; serves the interests of justice; has indicia of reliability
R. 68 (2)(c): person has died or due to obstacles cannot be testify orally
R. 68 (2)(d): person has been subjected to interference
*note that option to split testimony if not inextricably linked still applies
Assessing reliability:
How was the evidence obtained/recorded
Source
Lack of testing through cross examination?
Given under oath?
Use of an interpreter?
Any inconsistencies?
Any corroboration or other reliable evidence?
Does it go to the acts and conduct of the accused?
Not every human rights violation would give rise to an exclusion of evidence – implicit hierarchy of rights e.g. ECtHR Art 3 v Art 6 or Art 8 (e.g. a not-verified digital evidence (social media post) not enough to be categorically excluded)
→ MICT Rule 117: Must show an egregious or serious violation that would cast substantial doubt on the reliability of the evidence or would seriously endanger the integrity of the proceedings
→ ICC Art. 69(7): Chamber must consider whether the evidence was obtained in violation of the Court’s
statutory scheme or internationally recognised human rights
Same standard as ad hoc tribunals
Broad discretion in determining whether the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the evidence or would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings
Digital evidence – right to privacy, e.g. Bemba
Poor quality & unreliable evidence: increases risk of miscarriage of justice; undermines quality and credibility of the record (or perception thereof); unnecessarily prolongs proceedings; costly – e.g. Gbagbo / Ngudjolo
Improve quality of investigations & collect best possible sources when collecting evidence with full disclosure to the Defence
Enforce Prosecutor’s duties under Art. 54(1)(a) to ensure evidence only credible/reliable evidence is presented – order the Prosecution to outline taken to verify evidence and sanction failure
Evidence that is repetitious, secondary or proves collateral/ irrelevant issues that do not advance the case
Ensure parties focus on the central issues in dispute & active effort to prevent eliciting of duplicative/ only remotely relevant evidence
Chamber should require detailed particularisation of charges - helps delineate the case & ensure a clear understanding of the scope of the facts (note Regulation 55 ability to re-characterise charges)
Time spent litigating the admission of evidence, consequently affecting the cost, quality, legitimacy and effectiveness of international criminal proceedings
Strict, clear and uniform conditions of admissibility – to reduce ‘evidential debris’ without prejudicing either party
Policing of admissibility conditions, including requiring parties to justify the need for duplicative/materially similar evidence – each party must establish these conditions are met
Introduction of a no-case-to-answer stage at the end of the Prosecution’s case, noted in Ruto and Kenyatta
Procedural options for reducing the amount of evidence:
-A (quasi-)dossier approach: copies of evidence the parties wish to present at trial
-In-depth analytical chart of evidence at the confirmation stage / footnoted DCC
-More proactive management of the evidential process by the Chamber, including calling their own evidence (especially expert witnesses)
With increasing internet/rise in tech + advancements in storage and analysis → we see a move away from witness testimony
Pros:
documentary evidence more “factual”
documentary evidence doesn't change over time
potential to get evidence from victims without retraumatization (still role for victims but without the trauma)
memory problems with live victims
Cons:
(being mindful that witnesses are not often victims) if they are, then can give an oral testimony that might be more impactful
Expert wintess testimony can be helpful
Digital explosives evidence and telecommunications evidence:
evidence of a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts
case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence + first time telecommunications evidence.
Prosecution divided presentation of evidence into (1) forensic evidence relating to the attack, incl. explosion reconstruction; (2) evidence of the preparatory acts (video footage to corroborate forensic evidence); and (3) identity and roles of the accused (calls, establish patterns, “business records”)
both relied primarily on call data records provided by Communication Service Providers
paved the way for Al Mahdi
Satellite images and open source evidence:
Google Earth images and Youtube videos showing the destruction of cultural property, OTP used an interactive digital platform to create 360⸰ visuals
open source evidence, well documented, public statements, no attempts to hide attacks
BUT valid grounds to challenge google earth admissions -> because no specific date & time (no additional step of seeking raw images, or question google employees, and no one on the ground to verify accuracy)
Judges can take a role to verify information, but they are also in charge to see if later evidence is still admissible
Digital financial evidence, intercept evidence and digital communications evidence:
3 main prongs to the investigation:
“following the money” through wire transfers made via Western Union
call data records, and surveillance of email communications (from Bemba’s laptop)
social media photos (Facebook)
→ raised issues of attorney-client privilege and the right to privacy (includes financial information)
→ Court: emails were already sent while he was in detention & they didn’t engage with facebook photos
defense objected to all grounds of evidence; chamber rejected, but said right to privacy CANNOT be interfered with EXCEPT in accordance with the law
because intl criminal case, they felt those safeguards were in place so the infringement was justified on that basis
Social media posts:
first ever arrest warrant based solely videos of executions (7, which formed the basis of the charge of murder as a war crime).
Proceedings now ended due to his passing: so we don't know the exact role of digital evidence but we know it is enough for an arrest warrant
Open source information
Publicly available information that anyone can obtain by request, purchase, or observation.
Includes but is not limited to: news/ blog articles, PDF reports/other docs found on the internet, visual and audio recordings, satellite imagery, internet archives, websites and databases & social media posts and user-generated material such as videos and photos posted on the web.
Methodological challenges of using open source information in legal cases, such as: reliability, availability, and security – difficulty in verifying exact location, date, time & identifying the individual (expertise required) à markers of authenticity noted in Katanga and Ngudjolo
Risk of information being removed from platforms before being preserved & security of eyewitnesses and those who gathered the information first-hand, or even bystanders visible in a photo or video
Concerns regarding the fairness of proceedings, the equality of arms, and the balancing of resources.
Digital presentation of evidence may lead to bias and inequality between D/P
Channelling the mass amounts of information available into a court of law may create an unimaginable backlog and delay in proceedings
Potential solutions/future considerations
Introduction of digital evidence should be deliberate, educated and careful
Must involve the Defence earlier in the process to analyse the raw data and ensure the fairness of the proceedings
Investigators and prosecutors must continuously adapt their policies and practices to address novel legal issues involving digital evidence & stay up to date with new technologies and devices
Consider right to privacy