Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Remarks on Evidentiary Matters

  • Published:
Criminal Law Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, held at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization between 15 June-17 July 1998[hereinafter ICCS].

  2. See below the discussion regarding the chapters on Articles 56, 61, 65, 69 and 74.

  3. Piragoff/Clarke, “Article 69”, in Ambos, ICC Commentary (2022), mn. 4-5; see also, Bitti, “Article 64” in Ambos, ICC Commentary (2022), mn.45.

  4. Ibid., mn.44-45.

  5. Ibid., mn.71.

  6. Ibid., mn.46.

  7. Ibid., mn. 46.

  8. Ibid., mn. 46.

  9. Ibid., mn. 71.

  10. Ibid., mn. 71.

  11. Schabas/Chaitidou/El Zeidy, , in Ambos, ICC Commentary (2022).

  12. Ibid., mn. 126.

  13. Ibid., mn. 126.

  14. Ibid., mn. 126.

  15. Piragoff/Clarke, supra note 3, mn. 46.

  16. Ibid., mn. 47.

  17. Ibid., mn. 47.

  18. Ibid., mn. 47.

  19. Ibid., mn. 47.

  20. Bitti, “Article 64”, in Ambos, ICC Commentary (2022), p. 1885 ff.

  21. Ibid., mn. 65.

  22. Triffterer/Kiss, “Article 74”, in Ambos, ICC Commentary (2022), mn. 27-39, 56-58.

  23. Ibid., mn. 38-39.

  24. Ibid., mn. 30.

  25. Ibid., mn.30.

  26. Ibid., mn. 30.

  27. Ibid., mn. 30.

  28. Ibid., mn. 30.

  29. Ibid., mn. 31.

  30. Ibid., mn. 33.

  31. Ibid., mn. 35.

  32. Ibid., mn. 35.

  33. See Rules of Procedure and Evidence before the Kosovo Specialist Chambers as amended on 13 March 2020, KSC-BD-03/Rev3/2020, Rule 140(2) [hereinafter KSC Rules].

  34. Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, AC, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against his conviction, ICC-01/04-01/06-3121-Red, 1 December 2014, para. 22.

  35. Guariglia/Hochmayr, “Article 56”, in Ambos, ICC Commentary (2022), mn. 12.

  36. Ibid., mn. 20.

  37. Ibid., mn. 6.

  38. Ibid., mn. 6.

  39. Ibid., mn. 14.

  40. Art. 69(7) ICCS. Evidence obtained by means of a violation of this Statute or internationally recognized human rights shall

    not be admissible if:

    (a) The violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the evidence; or

    (b) The admission of the evidence would be antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings.

  41. Schabas/Chaitidou/El Zeidy, supra note 11, mn. 73.

  42. Ibid., mn. 73.

  43. Ibid, mn. 75.

  44. Ibid., mn. 75. See also, Situation in the Republic of Uganda, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, AC, Judgment on the Appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-trial Chamber II entitled ‘Decision Setting the Regime for Evidence Disclosure and Other Related Matters’, ICC-02/04-01/15-251, 17 June 2015, para. 2.

  45. Chambers Practice Manual, Sixth Edition, Adopted Following the Judicial Retreat of 2021, paras 24, 43[hereinafter Chambers Practice Manual] (“[N]o submission of any ‘in-depth analysis chart’, or similia, of the evidence relied upon for the purposes of the confirmation hearing can be imposed on either of the parties”). Ibid., para. 43.

  46. Situation in Mali, Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, PTCI, Decision on Evidence Disclosure Protocol and Other Related Questions, ICC-01/12-01/18-31-tENG, 16 May 2018, paras 50-51; Situation in the Central African Republic II, PTCII, Prosecutor v. Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaissona, Second Decision on Disclosure and Related Matters, ICC-01/14-01/18-163, 4 April 2019, paras 23-24.

  47. Piragoff/Clarke, supra note 3 ; Bitti,, supra note 20.

  48. See, Situation in the Republic of Côte D’Ivoire, Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé, AC, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Laurent Gbagbo against the decision of Trial Chamber I entitled “Decision giving notice pursuant to Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court”, ICC-02/11-01/15-369, 18 December 2015, para. 54.

  49. Introduction to Chambers Practice Manual, 2015; 2016; 2017, 2019; 2022. For a critical analysis, see Y. McDermott, ‘The International Criminal Court’s Chambers Practice Manual: Towards a Return to Judicial Law Making in International Criminal Procedure?’, 15 JICJ 873(2017).

  50. Chambers Practice Manual, para. 43.

  51. Ibid., para. 42.

  52. Ibid., para. 36.

  53. See, Piragoff/Clarke, supra note 3, mn. 45-47 (noting the discrepancies and different approaches of the Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber).

  54. According to Rule 138 KSC Rules “Unless challenged or proprio motu excluded, evidence submitted to the Panel shall be admitted if it is relevant, authentic, has probative value and its probative value is not outweighed by its prejudicial effect”. Thus, as a principle parties are expected to raise any objection to evidence submitted as is the proprio motu duty of the Chamber (knowing the evidence exchanged between the parties and communicated to it). In case of silence on behalf of the parties or the Chamber, the evidence becomes part of the record of the proceedings and could be dealt with in its course.

  55. Piragoff/Clarke, supra note 3, mn. 44.

  56. Rule 132 KSC Rules reads as follows: “After hearing the Parties and, where applicable, Victims’ Counsel, the Panel may invite the submission of or proprio motu call additional evidence not produced by the Parties, including expert evidence, where it considers it necessary for the determination of the truth.”

  57. Rule 68(2)(b) ICC RPE.

  58. On digital evidence, see “Leiden Guidelines on the Use of Digitally Derived Evidence”, available at: Introduction - Leiden Guidelines on the Use of Digitally Derived Evidence (leiden-guidelines.netlify.app). See also Piragoff/Clarke, supra note 3, mn. 34-37; See also Rule 67 ICC RPE.

  59. See, inter alia, “Report on Digitally Derived Evidence in International Criminal Law”, (Leiden University, 2019); see also Piragoff/Clarke, supra note 3, mn. 36-37.

  60. Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, AC, Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, para. 89.

  61. Situation in the Central African Republic, Prosecutor v. Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, TCIII, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, ICC-01/05-01/08-802, 24 June 2010, para. 255.

  62. Situation in Libya, Prosecutor v. Mahmoud Al Werfalli, PTCI, Warrant of Arrest, ICC-01/11-01/17-2, 15 August 2017, paras 11-16, 22; Situation in Libya, Prosecutor v. Mahmoud Al Werfalli, PTCI, Second Warrant of Arrest, ICC-01/11-01/17-13, 4 July 2018, paras 17-18.

  63. Situation in Mali, Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Mahdi, Transcript, ICC-01/12-01/15-T-Red- Eng, 22 August 2016.

  64. This issue is raised consistently in literature on the novel evidence. See, inter alia, L. Freeman, ‘Digital Evidence and War Crimes Prosecutions: The Impact of digital Technologies on International Criminal investigations and Trials’, 41 Fordham International Law Journal 283 (2018); “Report on Digitally Derived Evidence in International Criminal Law”, (Leiden University, 2019), p. 41.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kosovo Specialist Chambers, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Ekaterina Trendafilova

Authors
  1. Ekaterina Trendafilova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ekaterina Trendafilova.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

* President of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Former Judge of the International Criminal Court. This chapter expresses the views of the author and does not reflect those of the International Criminal Court or the Kosovo Specialist Chambers. My gratitude to Dr. Mohamed El Zeidy for his continuous support and exchanges on this chapter. e-mail: Ekaterina.Trendafilova@scp-ks.org

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trendafilova, E. Some Remarks on Evidentiary Matters. Crim Law Forum 34, 449–464 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-023-09475-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-023-09475-7

Search

Navigation