Available in Russian
Author: Oleksandr Yevsieiev
Keywords: evidence; International Criminal Court; International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; International Tribunal for Rwanda; judicial cognition; proofing
The article deals with a block of problems related to the process of proving before the international criminal justice bodies, particularly the International Criminal Court, as well as the two international criminal tribunals ad hoc: for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. It underlines the influence that the Anglo-Saxon institutions, including the evidence law, stressed on the constituent documents and the practical activities of these jurisdictional bodies. Appealing to the past of the international criminal justice, mainly the experience of the Nuremberg trial 1945–1946, the author notes the significant changes that have occurred over the past decades in the field of characteristics and the list of evidence with which international courts operate. In particular, the increasing use of visual evidence, as well as digital evidence, obtained through the Internet, has become more and more widespread. Special attention is paid to the oral testimony of the witnesses and the defendants who remain conditio sine qua non carried out in strict procedural forms of legal activity aimed at establishing the factual circumstances. Introspection is done in specific court proceedings that took place during the period of the ICTY’s existence, above all, the trial of the former Serbian President S.Milosevic. An attempt is made to highlight some common problems characteristic of all types of evidence in the international criminal procedure. Among the difficulties which appear in connection with the evidence law in the international criminal justice one can name the significant time gap between committed crimes and the moment of presenting evidence before an international court. Indeed, over the past decades, not only the witnesses died or grew old, the material evidence and many documents were lost, but also the events themselves have been transformed so radically by the daily information input that it is already extremely difficult for the people to separate the personal memories of what they saw and the kind of social narrative that is aggressively imposed to the post-conflict societies through the media. Other difficulties are caused by the non-professional work of the translators or simply by human misunderstanding on a language basis. For example, in the ICTY the vast majority of the victims and the witnesses did not speak the working languages of the Tribunal. It is stressed that the priority of oral evidence increases the risk of testimonial inaccuracies which are caused by human perception. That is why the psychologists identified a pattern according to which the risk of mistaking the testimony of witnesses (victims) of violent acts is higher than that of witnesses (victims) of non-violent.
About the author: Oleksandr Yevsieiev – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Yevsieiev O. (2019) Osobennosti dokazyvaniya v praktike organov mezhdunarodnogo ugolovnogo pravosudiya [Features of evidence in the practice of international criminal justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.9, no.3, pp.69–83. (In Russian).
Baer A., Sznaider N. (2017) Memory and Forgetting in the Post-Holocaust Era. New York: Routledge.
Combs N.A. (2010) Fact-finding Without Facts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
De Brouwer A.-M. (2015) The Problem of Witness Interference Before International Criminal Tribunals. International Criminal Law Review, vol.15, no.4, pp.700–732.
Douglas L. (1995) Film as Witness: Screening “Nazi Concentration Camps” Before the Nuremberg Tribunal. The Yale Law Journal, vol.105, no.2, pp.449–481.
Getman-Pavlova I.V., Filatova M.A. (2017) Poluchenie i predstavlenie dokazatel'stv v mezhdunarodnom grazhdanskom protsesse (otdel'nye teoreticheskie i prakticheskie problemy) [Evidence getting and presenting in international civil procedure (particular theoretic and practical problems)]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.23, no.3, pp.96–109. (In Russian).
Gilbert G. (2012) Nyurnbergskiy dnevnik [Nuremberg diary], Moscow: Veche. (In Russian).
Golovko L.V. (2009) Materialy k postroeniyu sravnitel'nogo ugolovno-protsessual'nogo prava: istochniki, dokazatel'stva, predvaritel'noe proizvodstvo [Materials to the construction of the comparative criminal procedure: sources, evidences, pre-trial investigation]. In: Trudy yuridicheskogo fakul'teta MGU imeni M.V.Lomonosova [The papers of the judicial faculty of the MSU named after M.V.Lomonosov], vol.11, Moscow: Pravovedenie, pp.227–360. (In Russian).
Grigoryev V.N., Antonov A.N. (2013) Reshenie Tribunala po byvshey Yugoslavii po delu Gotovina/Markach kak ocherednoy proval mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya [The decision of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Gotovina/Markach case as (regular) failure of international justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.9–15. (In Russian).
Grodzinskiy M. (1927) Edinoobrazie oshibok v svidetel'skikh pokazaniyakh [Uniformity of errors in testimony]. Arkhiv kriminologii i sudebnoy meditsiny, vol.I, no.4/5(3), pp.1005–1018. (In Russian).
Hartmann F. (2018) Mir i nakazanie: taynye voyny mezhdunarodnoy politiki i pravosudiya [Peace and punishment: the secret wars of international politics and justice], Kharkov: Yurait. (In Russian).
Hazan P. (2004) Justice in a Time of War, Texas, TX: A&M University Press.
King K.L., Meernik J.D. (2017) The Witness Experience: Testimony at the ICTY and Its Impact, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Medvedev I.G. (2004) Dokazatel'stva v mezhdunarodnom grazhdanskom protsesse [The evidences in the international civil procedure]. Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik grazhdanskogo i arbitrazhnogo protsessa, no.2, pp.228–281. (In Russian).
Mezyaev A. (2005) Protsess protiv S.Miloshevicha v Gaagskom tribunale: Zapiski iz zala suda [The trial against S.Milosevic in the Hague tribunal: Notes from the court room], vol.1, Kazan: Titul-Kazan'. (In Russian).
Murphy P., Baddour L. (2010) International Criminal Law and Common Law Rules of Evidence. In: Khan K., Buisman C., Gosnell C. (eds.) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.96–156.
Petrovic V. (2014) A Crack in the Wall of Denial: The “Scorpions” Video in and out of the Courtroom. In: Zarkov D., Glasius M. (eds.) Narratives of Justice in and out of the Courtroom, The Hague: Springer International Publishing, pp.89–110.
Petrovic V. (2015) Power(lessness) of Atrocity Images: Bijeljina Photos Between Perpetration and Prosecution of War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia. In: International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol.9, no.3, pp.367–385.
Rents I.G. (2018) Fakty i dokazatel'stva v mezhdunarodnykh sporakh: mezhdu istinoy i spravedlivost'yu [Facts and evidences in the international disputes: between truth and justice], Moscow: Statut. (In Russian).
Rozenblit S.Ya. (1948) Pokazaniya svideteley i podsudimykh v mezhdunarodnom ugolovnom protsesse [The testimonies of witnesses and defendants], Moscow: Yurizdat. (In Russian).
Scharf M. (1997) Balkan Justice, Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Stepakoff S., Reynolds G.S., Charters S., Henry N. (2014) Why Testify? Witnesses’ Motivations for Giving Evidence in a War Crimes Tribunal in Sierra Leone. In: The International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol.8, no.3, pp.426–451.
Stover E. (2004) Witnesses and the Promise of Justice in the Hague. In: Stover E., Weinstein H.M. (eds.) My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.104–120.
Stover E., Shigekane R. (2002) Litsa, propavshie bez vesti v rezul'tate voyny: kogda stalkivayutsya interesy semey zhertv voyny i mezhdunarodnykh tribunalov po rassledovaniyu voennykh prestupleniy? [The missing in the aftermath of war: when do the needs of victims’ families and international war crimes tribunals clash?]. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal Krasnogo Kresta, no.848, pp.141–165. (In Russian).
Tochilovsky V. (2010) The Nature and Evolution of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. In: Khan K., Buisman C., Gosnell C. (eds.) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.157–184.
Tochilovsky V. (2014) The Law and Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals and Courts, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Intersentia.
Tochilovsky V. (2018) Objectivity of the ICC Preliminary Examinations. In: Bergsmo M., Stahn C. (eds.) Quality Control in Preliminary Examination, vol.2, Brussels: TOAEP, pp.395–410.
Yevsieiev O. (2017) “Prorabotka proshlogo”: slozhnost' sudebnogo poznaniya [“Dealing with the past”: the difficulties of forensic truth]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.24, no.4, pp.122–136. (In Russian).
Yevsieiev O.P. (2018) Vozmozhnye puti osushchestvleniya mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya dlya Sirii [The possible ways of implementation of the international justice for Syria]. Visnyk Kharkovskogo natsionalnogo universitetu imeni V.N.Karazina, no.25, pp.134–140. (In Russian).
Zahar A. (2010) Witness Memory and the Manufacture of Evidence at the International Criminal Tribunals. In: Stahn C., Van Den Herik L. (eds.) Future Perspectives on International Criminal Justice, Cambridge: TMC Asser Press, pp.600–610