Abstract
AbstractThis paper draws on some of the preliminary findings of a small pilot study which aimed to discover what evidentiary challenges a range of practitioners with experience of different international trials faced in the cases they were involved in, and what practices were developed to deal with these challenges. The findings in this study are based on the data collected from The Hague-based institutions, the ICC, the ICTY, the ICTY and ICTR Appeals Chamber, and the Special Tribunal for the Lebanon (STL). It is argued that professionals moving from institution to institution are engaged in a process of cross-pollination which itself influences the practices that develop, although a common understanding of certain evidentiary issues in international trials remains fragmented and at times elusive.
Highlights
John Jackson and Yassin M’Boge*One of the motivations of the authors in organising a conference on the socio-legal aspects of how evidence is handled in international criminal tribunals was that there is a body of scholarship on how rules of evidence and procedure have developed in the tribunals, there is little scholarship on how practitioners themselves view the processes of investigation, prosecution and presentation of evidence at trial
This paper draws on some of the preliminary findings of a small pilot study which aimed to discover what evidentiary challenges a range of practitioners with experience of different international trials faced in the cases they were involved in and what practices were developed to deal with these challenges
While we can debate what kind of idealised systems are most appropriate for international criminal justice, there is little point in projecting our ideals on to those charged with making international justice work unless we first have an understanding of how these ideals are likely to be mediated in practice.[2]
Summary
One of the motivations of the authors in organising a conference on the socio-legal aspects of how evidence is handled in international criminal tribunals was that there is a body of scholarship on how rules of evidence and procedure have developed in the tribunals, there is little scholarship on how practitioners themselves view the processes of investigation, prosecution and presentation of evidence at trial. While we can debate what kind of idealised systems are most appropriate for international criminal justice, there is little point in projecting our ideals on to those charged with making international justice work unless we first have an understanding of how these ideals are likely to be mediated in practice.[2] These challenges.[3] The study took place in two phases, the first focused on practitioners who have worked in The Hague based institutions: the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Internatioanl Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the Special Tribunal for the Lebanon (STL). It shall be demonstrated that professionals moving from institution to institution are engaged in a process of cross-pollination which itself influences the practices that develop, we shall see that a common understanding towards certain evidentiary issues in international trials remains fragmented and at times elusive
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
