Evidential reasoning in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: a case study of Tharcisse Muvunyi

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to illustrate the application of Modified Wigmorean Analysis to reasoning in fact-finding by international criminal tribunals, using selected aspects of the ICTR case of Muvunyi as the central example. This case study should show that Modified Wigmorean Analysis can be applied to this kind of material, that it is capable of illuminating what was in fact argued in justification by the Court and what might have been argued more cogently. Furthermore, we suggest that the method is not as difficult as might appear at first sight, in that some first year American law students have produced analyses of this and other ICTR cases to a reasonably high standard. This case study illustrates the uses and limitations of Modified Wigmorean Analysis and its particular application to witness credibility on which this and some other ICTR cases have largely turned.