Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expert Evidence in International Criminal Trials

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice

Abstract

On 20 November 1945, only six and a half months after Germany surrendered in World War II, leading German officials were brought to trial before the International Military Tribunal, the best known of the post-World War II military tribunals. After much debate, 24 defendants were selected to represent the Nazi diplomatic, economic, political, and military leadership. Robert Jackson, the American chief prosecutor at the IMT, decided to base his case primarily on the vast number of documents written by the Nazis themselves, rather than on eyewitness testimony, so that the trial would be based on reliable evidence and avoid accusations of reliance on potentially biased witness accounts. The legal documents of the IMT contain few references to the court’s reliance on expert evidence. The notable absence of experts may be explained by the overall epistemic circumstances of the trials—the leadership level of perpetrators, the gravity of the crimes committed and, of course, the abundance of documentary evidence—which served to make expert participation unnecessary. The quality and probative value of the accessible non-expert evidence was highly likely to prove the guilt of the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Raful, L. (2006), The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law Since 1945. Munich: K S Saur Verlag, p. 78.

  2. 2.

    See e.g. Transcript of 13 February 1946, IMT Trial Proceedings Vol. 7 Blue Series. The Avalon Project, Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy; Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library, available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu.

  3. 3.

    Beginning with the outbreak of World War II, criminal medical experiments on non-German nationals, both prisoners of war and civilians, were carried out on a large scale both in Germany and in the occupied countries.

  4. 4.

    From the opening statement of Prosecutor Taylor: “A sort of rough pattern is apparent on the face of the indictment. Experiments concerning high altitude, the effect of cold, and the potability of processed sea water have an obvious relation to aeronautical and naval combat and rescue problems. The mustard gas and phosphorous burn experiments, as well as those relating to the healing value of sulfanilamide for wounds, can be related to air-raid and battlefield medical problems. It is well known that malaria, epidemic jaundice, and typhus were among the principal diseases which had to be combated by the German Armed Forces and by German authorities in occupied territories.

    To some degree, the therapeutic pattern outlined above is undoubtedly a valid one, and explains why the Wehrmacht, and especially the German Air Force, participated in these experiments. Fanatically bent upon conquest, utterly ruthless as to the means or instruments to be used in achieving victory, and callous to the sufferings of people whom they regarded as inferior, the German militarists were willing to gather whatever scientific fruit these experiments might yield.

    But our proof will show that a quite different and even more sinister objective runs like a red thread through these hideous researches. We will show that in some instances the true object of these experiments was not how to rescue or to cure, but how to destroy and kill. The sterilization experiments were, it is clear, purely destructive in purpose. The prisoners at Buchenwald who were shot with poisoned bullets were not guinea pigs to test an antidote for the poison; their murderers really wanted to know how quickly the poison would kill. This destructive objective is not superficially as apparent in the other experiments, but we will show that it was often there.

    Mankind has not heretofore felt the need of a word to denominate the science of how to kill prisoners most rapidly and subjugated people in large numbers. This case and these defendants have created this gruesome question for the lexicographer. For the moment we will christen this macabre science “thanatology,” the science of producing death. The thanatological knowledge, derived in part from these experiments, supplied the techniques for genocide, a policy of the Third Reich, exemplified in the “euthanasia” program and in the widespread slaughter of Jews, gypsies, Poles, and Russians. This policy of mass extermination could not have been so effectively carried out without the active participation of German medical scientists.”

  5. 5.

    Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10, (1946). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Vol. 1 “The Medical Case”, p. 70.

  6. 6.

    Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10, (1946). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Vol. 1 “The Medical Case”, p. 70.

  7. 7.

    Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10, (1946). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Vol. 1 “The Medical Case”, p. 70.

  8. 8.

    Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10, (1946). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Vol. 1 “The Medical Case”, pp. 108-111.

  9. 9.

    Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10, (1946). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Vol. 1 “The Medical Case”, p. 138.

  10. 10.

    Tochilovsky, V. (2008), Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Courts and the European Court of Human Rights. London, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 400-402.

  11. 11.

    Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 384; Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion for the Reduction of the Public Record. Case IT-96-21-T, 5 June 1997, para. 41.

  12. 12.

    Tochilovsky, V. (2008), Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Courts and the European Court of Human Rights. London, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 400, 402.

  13. 13.

    Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion for the Reduction of the Public Record. Case IT-96-21-T, 5 June 1997, para. 41.

  14. 14.

    Tochilovsky, V. (2008), Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Courts and the European Court of Human Rights. London, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, p. 403.

  15. 15.

    Article 74.2 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, A/CONF.183/9; Friman, H. (2003), Inspiration from the International Criminal Tribunals When Developing Law of Evidence for the International Criminal Court, 3 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, pp. 383-386.

  16. 16.

    May, R. and Wierda, M. (1999), Trends in International Criminal Evidence: Nuremberg, Tokyo, The Hague, and Arusha, 37 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, p. 732, citing 15 Trials of War Criminals Before The Nueremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10 (1946-1949), at 894; Rule 63.2 of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, ICC-ASP/1/3.

  17. 17.

    Prosecutor v. Norman et al., Fofana – Appeal against Decision Refusing Bail. SCSL-04-14-AR65, 11 March 2005, para. 26.

  18. 18.

    Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 376.

  19. 19.

    Defrancia, C. (2001), Due Process in International Criminal Courts: Why Procedure Matters, 87 Virginia Law Review, p. 1398.

  20. 20.

    Rule 89(C) of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc. IT/277.

  21. 21.

    Tochilovsky, V. (2008), Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Courts and the European Court of Human Rights. London, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, p. 323; Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 378.

  22. 22.

    Rule 89 of the ICTY RPE; Rules 89 of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc. ITR/3; Friman, H. (2003), Inspiration from the International Criminal Tribunals When Developing Law of Evidence for the International Criminal Court, 3 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, p. 386.

  23. 23.

    Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Decision on the Tendering of Prosecution Exhibits 104-108. IT-96-21-T, 9 February 1998, paras 8, 13, 19.

  24. 24.

    Prosecutor v. Milutinovic et al., Decision on Prosecution’s Rule 92bis Motion. Case IT-05-87-PT, 4 July 2006, para. 5.

  25. 25.

    Article 14 of the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2178 UNTS 138, 145; 97 AJIL 295; UN Doc. S/2002/246, appendix II.

  26. 26.

    Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 382.

  27. 27.

    Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, U.N. Doc. STL/BD/2009/01; Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 381-382.

  28. 28.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 603.

  29. 29.

    Tochilovsky, V. (2008), Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Courts and the European Court of Human Rights. London, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, p. 323; Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 378.

  30. 30.

    Rule 94bis reads:

    • (A) The full statement and/or report of any expert witness to be called by a party shall be disclosed within the time-limit prescribed by the Trial Chamber or by the pre-trial Judge.

    • (B) Within thirty days of disclosure of the statement and/or report of the expert witness, or such other time prescribed by the Trial Chamber or pre-trial Judge, the opposing party shall file a notice indicating whether:

    • (i) it accepts the expert witness statement and/or report; or

    • (ii) it wishes to cross-examine the expert witness; and

    • (iii) it challenges the qualifications of the witness as an expert or the relevance of all or parts of the statement and/or report and, if so, which parts.

  31. 31.

    Rule 94bis (A) and (B) of ICTY, ICTR and SCSL Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

  32. 32.

    Singh, A., Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 603.

  33. 33.

    Prosecutor v. Édouard Karemera et al., Decision on Prosecution Prospective Experts Witnesses Alison Des Forges, Andre Guichaoua and Binaifer Nowrojee. ICTR-98-44-T, 25 October 2007, para. 13.

  34. 34.

    Prosecutor v. Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, Appeal Judgement. Case ICTR-2001-64-A, 7 July 2006, citing Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, para 164.

  35. 35.

    Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu et al., Decision on Prosecutor’s Motion Objecting to the Admission of Professor Geoffrey Corn’s Report. Case ICTR-99-50-T, 16 May 2008, para. 4.

  36. 36.

    Singh, A., Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 602-604.

  37. 37.

    Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Robert Donia. Case IT-98-29/1-T, 15 February 2007, para. 6; Prosecutor v. Édouard Karemera, Decision on Edouard Karemera’s Motion for the Admission of an Expert Witness. Case ICTR-98-44-T, 22 May 2009, para. 5; Prosecutor v. Martić of ICTY, Decision on Defence’s Submission of the Expert Report of Professor Smilja Avramov Pursuant to Rule 94bis. Case IT-95-11-T 9, November 2006, para 5; See also Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović and Kubura of ICTY, Decision on Report of Prosecution Expert Kalus Reinhardt, Case IT-01-47-T, 11 February 2004; Prosecutor v. Galić, Decision Concerning the Expert Witnesses Ewa Tabeau and Richard Philips. Case IT-98-29-T, 3 July 2002.

  38. 38.

    Singh, A., Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 611; see also Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Robert Donia. Case IT-98-29/1-T, 15 February 2007, para. 8; Prosecutor v. Stanisic and Simatovic, Decision on Prosecution’s Submissions of the Expert Report of Nena Tromp and Christian Nielson Pursuant to rule 94bis. Case IT-03-69-PT, 18 March 2009, para. 9; Prosecutor v. Perisic, Decision on Admissibility of Expert Report of Patrick Treanor, Case IT-04-81-T, 27 November 2008, paras. 14, 17.

  39. 39.

    Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 382.

  40. 40.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 604.

  41. 41.

    Prosecutor v. Galić, Decision Concerning the Expert Witness Ewa Tabeau and Richard Philips. Case IT-98-29-T, 3 July 2002, para 2.

  42. 42.

    E.g. Prosecutor v. Brđanin, Decision on Prosecution’s Submission of Statement of Expert Witness Ewan Brown. Case IT-99-36-T, 3 June 2003; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Decision on the Defence Motions to Oppose Admission of Prosecution Expert Reports Pursuant to Rule 94bis, Case IT-01-42-PT, 1 April 2004; Prosecutor v. Bogosora et al., Decision on Motion for Exclusion of Expert Witness Statement of Filip Reyntjens, Case ICTR-98-41-T, 28 September 2004; Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Decision on the Admissibility of the Expert Testimony of Dr Binaifer Nowrojee, Case ICTR-99-50-T, 8 July 2005; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Appeals Chamber Judgement, Case ICTR-97-20-A, 20 May 2005; Prosecutor v. Martić, Decision on Prosecution’s Motions for Admission of Transcripts Pursuant to Rule 92bis(D) and of Expert Reports Pursuant to Rule 94bis, Case No. IT-95-11-T, 13 January 2006; Prosecutor v. Boškoski and Tarćulovski, Public Decision on Motion to Exclude the Prosecution’s Proposed Evidence of Expert Bezruchenko and His Report, Case IT-04-82-T, 17 May 2007; Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al., Appeals Chamber Judgement, Case ICTR-99-52-A, 28 November 2007; Prosecutor v. Popović et al., Appeals Chamber Decision on Joint Defence Interlocutory Appeal Concerning the Status of Richard Butler as an Expert Witness, Case IT-05-88-AR73.2, 30 January 2008; Prosecutor v. Norman et al., Decision on Fofana Submissions Regarding Proposed Expert Witness Daniel J. Hoffmann PhD, Case SCSL-04-14-T, 7 July 2006.

  43. 43.

    Prosecutor v. Norman et al., Decision on Fofana Application for Leave to Call Additional Witness, Case SCSL-04-14-T, 17 July 2006, para. 5; see also Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Decision on a Defence Motion for the Appearance of an Accused as an Expert Witness, Case ICTR-96-04-T, 9 March 1998.

  44. 44.

    Prosecutor v. Milutinovic et al., Decision on Evidence Tendered through Dr. Eric Baccard, Case IT-05-87-T, 16 March 2007, para. 13; Prosecutor v. Blagoevic et al., Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Admission of Expert Statements, IT-02-60-T, 7 November 2003, para. 19.

  45. 45.

    Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., Written Reasoned Ruling on the Preliminary Characterization of Expert Witness TF1-296, Case SCSL-04-15-T, 14 July 2006, para. 6; Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević of ICTY, Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Robert Donia, 15 February 2007.

  46. 46.

    Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Robert Donia. Case IT-98-29/1-T, 15 February 2007, para. 7; Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević, Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Kosta Čavoški. Case IT-02-54-T, 1 March 2006, pp. 2-3; Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 614.

  47. 47.

    Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Robert Donia. Case IT-98-29/1-T, 15 February 2007, para. 7; Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., Written Reasoned Ruling on the Preliminary Characterization of Expert Witness TF1-296, Case SCSL-04-15-T, 14 July 2006, para. 13; see also Prosecutor v. Norman et al., Decision on Fofana Submissions Regarding Proposed Expert Witness Daniel J. Hoffmann PhD, Case SCSL-04-14-T, 7 July 2006.

  48. 48.

    Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Oral Decision on Qualification of Prosecution Expert Witness Jean Rubaduka, Case ICTR-99-50-T, 24 March 2004, p. 2.

  49. 49.

    Prosecutor v. Galić, Decision Concerning the Expert Witnesses Ewa Tabeau and Richard Philips. Case IT-98-29-T, 3 July 2002, p. 3.

  50. 50.

    Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Appeals Judgement, Case ICTR-2001-64-A, 7 July 2006, para. 31; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Appeals Judgement, Case ICTR-97-20-A, 20 May 2005, para. 304; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Appeals Chamber Judgement, Case ICTR-96-3-A, 26 May 2003, para. 166.

  51. 51.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 614.

  52. 52.

    See e.g. Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Oral Decision on Qualification of Prosecution Expert Witness Jean Rubaduka, Case ICTR-99-50-T, 24 March 2004.

  53. 53.

    Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Oral Decision on Qualification of Prosecution Expert Witness Jean Rubaduka, Case ICTR-99-50-T, 24 March 2004; Schabas, W. (2006), The UN International Criminal Tribunals: The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 481-482.

  54. 54.

    Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Oral Decision on Qualification of Prosecution Expert Witness Jean Rubaduka, Case ICTR-99-50-T, 24 March 2004.

  55. 55.

    Prosecutor v. Karemera et al., Decision on Joseph Nzirorera’s Motion to Preclude Testimony by Charles Ntampaka, Case ICTR-98-44-T, 26 September 2007, paras 6, 12-13.

  56. 56.

    Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Case ICTR-99-50-T, Transcript of 25 April 2006, pp. 3-4.

  57. 57.

    Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Appeals Chamber Judgement, Case ICTR-99-52-A, 28 November 2007, paras 287-291.

  58. 58.

    Prosecution v. Popović et al., Appeals Chamber Decision on Joint Defence Interlocutory Appeal Concerning the Status of Richard Butler as an Expert Witness, Case IT-05-88-AR73.2, 30 January 2008, paras 27-29.

  59. 59.

    Prosecutor v. Popović et al., Second Decision Regarding the Evidence of General Rupert Smith, Case IT-05-88-T, 11 October 2007, para. 4.

  60. 60.

    Prosecutor v. Bogosora et al., Decision on Admissibility of Proposed Testimony of Witness DBY, Case ICTR-98-41-T, 18 September 2003, para. 4.

  61. 61.

    Prosecutor v. Blagojevic et al., Decision on Admission into Evidence of Intercept-Related Materials, Case IT-02-60-T, 18 December 2003, para. 17.

  62. 62.

    Roberts, P. and Zuckerman A. (2010), Criminal Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 101.

  63. 63.

    Roberts, P. and Zuckerman A. (2010), Criminal Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 103-104.

  64. 64.

    Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 435.

  65. 65.

    Prosecutor v. Ngeze and Nahimana, Decision on the Interlocutory Appeals, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, Case ICTR-99-52-I, 5 September 2000, para. 23.

  66. 66.

    Roberts, P. and Zuckerman A. (2010), Criminal Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 103-104.

  67. 67.

    Prosecutor v. Blagojevic et al., Decision on Admission into Evidence of Intercept-Related Materials, Case IT-02-60-T, 18 December 2003, para. 17; Prosecutor v. Bogosora et al., Decision on Admissibility of Proposed Testimony of Witness DBY, Case ICTR-98-41-T, 18 September 2003, para. 15.

  68. 68.

    Prosecutor v. Blagojevic et al., Decision on Admission into Evidence of Intercept-Related Materials, Case IT-02-60-T, 18 December 2003, para. 17 (emphasis added by author).

  69. 69.

    ‘Probative’ Oxford Dictionary of English. Edited by Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2010. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Copenhagen University Library. 11 July 2012 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e0663690.

  70. 70.

    Roberts, P. and Zuckerman A. (2010), Criminal Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 107.

  71. 71.

    Final Report of the United Nations Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) prepared by Hanne Sophie Greve. S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. I) 28 December 1994.

  72. 72.

    Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Transcript of 20 May 1996.

  73. 73.

    Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case IT-94-1-T, Transcript of 20 May 1996.

  74. 74.

    May, R. and Wierda, M. (2002), International Criminal Evidence. New York: Transnational Publishers, p. 202; Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 629.

  75. 75.

    Prosecutor v. Bogosora et al., Decision on Admissibility of Proposed Testimony of Witness DBY, Case ICTR-98-41-T, 18 September 2003, para. 4.

  76. 76.

    Prosecutor v. Bogosora et al., Decision on Request for Subpoenas of United Nations Officials, Case ICTR-98-41-T, 6 October 2006, para. 14; Prosecutor v. Bogosora et al., Decision on Admissibility of Proposed Testimony of Witness DBY, Case ICTR-98-41-T, 18 September 2003, para. 4, 15, 18.

  77. 77.

    Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Written Reasons for Oral Ruling of 23 March 2005 on the Stage for Determining Expert Witness’s Credibility, ICTR-99-50-T, 27 April 2005, para. 16.

  78. 78.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 622.

  79. 79.

    Prosecutor v. Blagojevic et al., Decision on Admission into Evidence of Intercept-Related Materials, Case IT-02-60-T, 18 December 2003, para. 14; Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Appeals Decision on Application of Defendant Zejni Delalic for Leave to Appeal against the Decision of the Trial Chamber of 19 January 1998 for the Admissibility of Evidence, Case IT-96-21-AR73.2, 4 March 1998, paras 19-20.

  80. 80.

    Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Appeals Decision on Appeal Regarding Statement of Deceased Witness, Case IT-95-14/2-AR73.5, 21 July 2000, para. 24.

  81. 81.

    Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision on Defence Motion on Hearsay, Case IT-94-1-T, 5 August 1996, para. 9; Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Admissibility of Four Documents, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 13 June 2008, para. 28; Prosecutor v. Katanga and Ngudjolo, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Case ICC-01-04-01/07, 30 September 2008, para. 77.

  82. 82.

    Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 385.

  83. 83.

    Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Appeals Decision on Appeal Regarding Statement of Deceased Witness, Case IT-95-14/2-AR73.5, 21 July 2000, paras 26-27; see also Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Appeals Decision on Application of Defendant Zejni Delalic for Leave to Appeal against the Decision of the Trial Chamber of 19 January 1998 for the Admissibility of Evidence, Case IT-96-21-AR73.2, 4 March 1998.

  84. 84.

    Prosecution v. Nyiaramasuhuko et al., Appeals Decision on Pauline Nyiaramasuhuko’s Appeal on the Admissibility of Evidence, Case ICTR-98-42-AR73.2, 4 October 2004, paras 6-7; Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Decision on Bizimungu’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Witness AP, Case ICTR-00-56-T, 28 October 2005, para. 33; Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Decision on the Motion of the Prosecution for the Admissibility of Evidence, Case IT-96-21-T, 19 January 1998, para. 20; Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 385.

  85. 85.

    Prosecution v. Brima et al., Decision on Joint Defence Application for Leave to Appeal from Decision on Defence Motion to Exclude All Evidence from Witness TF1-277, Case SCSL-04-16-T, 2 August 2005, para. 6.

  86. 86.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 622.

  87. 87.

    See Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Robert Donia. Case IT-98-29/1-T, 15 February 2007.

  88. 88.

    Prosecutor v. Martić, Decision on Prosecution’s Motions for Admission of Transcripts Pursuant to Rule 92bis(D) and of Expert Reports Pursuant to Rule 94bis, Case No. IT-95-11-T, 13 January 2006, para. 37.

  89. 89.

    Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Robert Donia. Case IT-98-29/1-T, 15 February 2007, para. 9; see also Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 627-628.

  90. 90.

    Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Robert Donia. Case IT-98-29/1-T, 15 February 2007, para. 8.

  91. 91.

    Prosecutor v. Blagoevic et al., Judgement, Case IT-02-60-T, 17 February 2005, para. 27; see also Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 626.

  92. 92.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 634-635.

  93. 93.

    (Emphasis added by author) Judge Thomson states, in justification of the reliability standard: “In the United States, the approach to expert evidence is two-pronged: reliability and relevance. In determining reliability, the court must engage in a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and whether the reasoning can properly be applied to the facts in issue. In addition, when determining scientific reliability, the trial judge should consider: (a) whether the proffered knowledge can be or has been tested, (b) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review, (c) the known or potential rate of error, and (d) whether the theory or technique has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific discipline: See Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (113) S.Ct. 2786 (1993) [United States of America], a leading decision in the USA; see also the earlier case of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC.Cir.) (1923)” [Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., Judgement, SCSL-04-15-T, 25 February 2009, para. 27].

  94. 94.

    Prosecutor v. Popović, Case IT05-08-T, Transcript of 15 March 2007.

  95. 95.

    Prosecutor v. Popović, Case IT05-08-T, Transcript of 15 March 2007.

  96. 96.

    Prosecutor v. Popović, Case IT05-08-T, Transcript of 15 March 2007.

  97. 97.

    Khan, K. and Dixon R. (2009), Archbold International Criminal Courts Practice, Procedure and Evidence. London: Thompson Reuters, 838.

  98. 98.

    Prosecutor v. Popović et al., Decision on Defence Rule 94bis Notice Regarding Prosecution Expert Witness Richard Butler, Case IT-05-88-T, 19 September 2007, paras 29-31.

  99. 99.

    Prosecutor v. Delic, Decision on Paul Cornish’s Status as an Expert, Case IT-04-83-T, 20 March 2008, para. 14.

  100. 100.

    Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Decision on Defence Motion for Exclusion of Portions of Testimony of Expert Witness Dr Alison Des Forges, Case ICTR-99-50-T, 2 September 2005, para. 31.

  101. 101.

    Prosecutor v. Karemera et al., Decision on Joseph Nzirorera’s Motion to Limit Scope of Testimony of Expert Witness Alison Des Forges and Andre Guichaoua, Case ICTR-98-44-T, 21 August 2007, para. 5.

  102. 102.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 629.

  103. 103.

    Prosecutor v. Karemera et al., Decision on Joseph Nzirorera’s Motion to Limit the Scope of Testimony of Expert Witness Alison Des Forges and Andre Guichaoua, Case ICTR-98-44-T, 21 August 2007, para. 5; see also Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Robert Donia. Case IT-98-29/1-T, 15 February 2007; Fabian, K.L. (2000), Proof and Consequences: An Analysis of the Tadic and Akayesu Trials. 49 DePaul Law Review, pp. 982-983, 1021-1022; May, R. and Wierda, M. (2002), International Criminal Evidence. New York: Transnational Publishers, pp. 198-204; Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 629.

  104. 104.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 630.

  105. 105.

    Fabian, K.L. (2000), Proof and Consequences: An Analysis of the Tadic and Akayesu Trials. 49 DePaul Law Review, p. 1021.

  106. 106.

    Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Judgement, Case ICTR-95-1A-T, 7 June 2001, para. 139.

  107. 107.

    Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Case ICTR-99-50-T, Transcript of 24 March 2008, pp. 37, 71-74.

  108. 108.

    Prosecutor v. Semanza, Judgement, ICTR-97-20-T, 15 May 2003, para. 279.

  109. 109.

    Prosecutor v. Semanza, Appeals Chamber Judgement, ICTR-97-20-A, 20 May 2005, para. 305. Emphasis added by author.

  110. 110.

    Fabian, K.L. (2000), Proof and Consequences: An Analysis of the Tadic and Akayesu Trials. 49 DePaul Law Review, p. 1021; Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 633.

  111. 111.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 633.

  112. 112.

    Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Appeals Chamber Judgement, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, ICTR-01-71-A, 16 January 2007, para. 12 at p. 54.

  113. 113.

    Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., Judgement, Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Bankole Thompson Filed Pursuant to Article 18 of the Statute, Case SCSL-04-15-T, 2 March 2009, para. 53.

  114. 114.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 630.

  115. 115.

    Khan, K. and Dixon R. (2009). Archbold International Criminal Courts Practice, Procedure and Evidence. London: Thompson Reuters, p. 834.

  116. 116.

    Prosecutor v. Taylor, Decision on Defence Application to Exclude the Evidence of Proposed Prosecution Witness Corinne Dufka or, in Alternative, to Limit its Scope and on urgent Prosecution Request for Decision, SCSL-03-1-T, 19 June 2008, para. 14; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Decision on a Defence Motion for the Appearance of an Accused as an Expert Witness, Case ICTR 96-4-T, 9 March 1998.

  117. 117.

    Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Decision on Prosecution Request for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal of Decision on Admission of the Witness Philip Coo’s Expert Report. Case IT-05-87-T, 30 August 2006.

  118. 118.

    Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Case IT-05-87-T, Transcript of 13 July 2006, pp. 840-844.

  119. 119.

    Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Case IT-05-87-T, Transcript of 13 July 2006, p. 840.

  120. 120.

    Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Submission by Mr. Milutinović to Join General Ojdanić’s Consolidated Response to Prosecution Applications for Certification to Appeal, Case IT-05-87-T, 28 July 2006.

  121. 121.

    Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Decision on Prosecution Request for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal of Decision on Admission of the Witness Philip Coo’s Expert Report, Case IT-05-87-T, 30 August 2006, para. 4.

  122. 122.

    Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Submission by Mr. Milutinović to Join General Ojdanić’s Consolidated Response to Prosecution Applications for Certification to Appeal, Case IT-05-87-T, 28 July 2006.

  123. 123.

    Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Decision on Prosecution Request for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal of Decision on Admission of the Witness Philip Coo’s Expert Report, Case IT-05-87-T, 30 August 2006, para. 10.

  124. 124.

    Prosecutor v. Popović et al., Joint Defence Motion for Certification of the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Defence Rule 94bis Notice Regarding Prosecution Expert Witness Richard Butler, Case IT-05-88-T, 26 September 2007.

  125. 125.

    Prosecutor v. Popović et al., Decision on Defence Rule 94bis Notice Regarding Prosecution Expert Witness Richard Butler, Case IT-05-88-T, 19 September 2007.

  126. 126.

    Prosecutor v. Popović et al., Appeals Chamber Decision on Joint Defence Interlocutory Appeal Concerning the Status of Richard Butler as an Expert Witness, Case IT-05-88-AR73.2, 30 January 2008.

  127. 127.

    Prosecutor v. Perišić, Notice Pursuant to Rule 94bis Concerning Prosecution Expert Richard Butler, Case IT-04-81-T, 13 November 2006.

  128. 128.

    Prosecutor v. Perišić, Notice Pursuant to Rule 94bis Concerning Prosecution Expert Richard Butler, Case IT-04-81-T, 13 November 2006.

  129. 129.

    The issue of proximity with the reference to the Milutinović case was raised also in the Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Decision on Expert Status of Reynaud Theunens, Case IT-03-67-T, 12 February 2008. The Prosecutor v. Martić, Decision on Defence’s Motion to Exclude the Evidence of Reynaud Theunens and to call an Independent Military Expert with Confidential Annexes A, B, C, D and E, Case IT-95-11-T 9, 28 November 2006.

  130. 130.

    Prosecutor v. Tolimir, Appeals Chamber Judgement, Case IT-05-88/2-A, 8 April 2015, paras 62-71.

  131. 131.

    Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Decision on the Admissibility of the Expert Testimony of Dr Binaifer Nowrojee, Case ICTR-99-50-T, 8 July 2005, para. 3.

  132. 132.

    Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević, Decision on Admission of Expert Report of Kosta Čavoški. Case IT-02-54-T, 1 March 2006.

  133. 133.

    Prosecutor v. Taylor, Decision on Defence Application to Exclude the Evidence of Proposed Prosecution Witness Corinne Dufka or, in Alternative, to Limit its Scope and on urgent Prosecution Request for Decision, SCSL-03-1-T, 19 June 2008, para. 17.

  134. 134.

    Prosecution v. Nyiramasuhuko et al., Appeals Decision on Pauline Nyiaramasuhuko’s Appeal on the Admissibility of Evidence, Case ICTR-98-42-AR73.2, 4 October 2004, para. 6.

  135. 135.

    Friman, H. (2003), Inspiration from the International Criminal Tribunals When Developing Law of Evidence for the International Criminal Court, 3 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, pp 379-380.

  136. 136.

    Jackson, J.D., and Summers S.J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 141.

  137. 137.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Practice of Witness Familiarisation and Witness Proofing, PTC; Decision Regarding the Practices Used to Prepare and Familiarise Witnesses for Giving Testimony at Trial, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 8 November 2006, paras 51-52.

  138. 138.

    Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 378.

  139. 139.

    Article 69(4) of the Rome Statute: “[t]he Court may rule on the relevance or admissibility of any evidence, taking into account, inter alia, the probative value of the evidence and any prejudice that such evidence may cause to a fair trial or to a fair evaluation of the testimony of a witness, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.”

  140. 140.

    Article 64.9 and 69.4 of the Rome Statute.

  141. 141.

    Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 379.

  142. 142.

    Gosnell, C. (2010), Admissibility of Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 383.

  143. 143.

    Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision on the Admissibility of Four Documents, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 13 June 2008, para. 29.

  144. 144.

    Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision on the Admissibility of Four Documents, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 13 June 2008, para. 23 (emphasis added by author).

  145. 145.

    Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision on the Admissibility of Four Documents, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 13 June 2008, para. 31 (emphasis added by author).

  146. 146.

    Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision on the Admissibility of Four Documents, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 13 June 2008, para. 28.

  147. 147.

    Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision on the Admissibility of Four Documents, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 13 June 2008, para. 30 (emphasis added by author).

  148. 148.

    Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision on the Admissibility of Four Documents, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 13 June 2008, para. 30.

  149. 149.

    Derham, R. (2010), From Ad Hoc to Hybrid – the Rules and Regulations Governing Reception of Expert Evidence at the International Criminal Court, 14 International Journal of Evidence and Proof, p. 29; Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 606.

  150. 150.

    Regulation 44 of the Regulations of the Court, International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. ICC-BD/01-01-04 (emphasis added).

  151. 151.

    Derham, R. (2010), From Ad Hoc to Hybrid – the Rules and Regulations Governing Reception of Expert Evidence at the International Criminal Court, 14 International Journal of Evidence and Proof, p. 27.

  152. 152.

    Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, Decision on the Fitness of Laurent Gbagbo to Take in the Proceedings Before This Court, Case ICC-02/11-01/11-286-Red, 2 November 2012.

  153. 153.

    Regulation 44 of the Regulations of the Court, International Criminal Court.

  154. 154.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Procedures for Instructing Expert Witnesses, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 10 December 2007, para. 24; see also Prosecutor v. Bemba, Decision on the Procedures to be Adopted for Instructing Expert Witnesses, Case ICC-01/05-01/08, 12 February 2010.

  155. 155.

    Regulation 56 of the Regulations of the Registry, International Criminal Court; Derham, R. (2010), From Ad Hoc to Hybrid – the Rules and Regulations Governing Reception of Expert Evidence at the International Criminal Court, 14 International Journal of Evidence and Proof, p. 28.

  156. 156.

    Regulation 56 of the Regulations of the Registry, International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. ICC-BD/03-01-06.

  157. 157.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Procedures for Instructing Expert Witnesses, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 10 December 2007, para. 25.

  158. 158.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Procedures for Instructing Expert Witnesses, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 10 December 2007, para. 17.

  159. 159.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Procedures for Instructing Expert Witnesses, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 10 December 2007, para. 22.

  160. 160.

    See Derham, R. (2010), From Ad Hoc to Hybrid – the Rules and Regulations Governing Reception of Expert Evidence at the International Criminal Court, 14 International Journal of Evidence and Proof.

  161. 161.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Procedures for Instructing Expert Witnesses, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 10 December 2007, paras 14-23.

  162. 162.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Procedures for Instructing Expert Witnesses, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 10 December 2007, para. 14.

  163. 163.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Procedures for Instructing Expert Witnesses, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 10 December 2007, paras 19-20.

  164. 164.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Procedures for Instructing Expert Witnesses, Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 10 December 2007, para. 15.

  165. 165.

    Derham, R. (2010), From Ad Hoc to Hybrid – the Rules and Regulations Governing Reception of Expert Evidence at the International Criminal Court, 14 International Journal of Evidence and Proof, p. 43.

  166. 166.

    Subject matter of the proposed testimony or methodology used by the expert.

  167. 167.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 622.

  168. 168.

    ICC Application Form for the Inclusion in the List of Experts (accessible from: http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/structure%20of%20the%20court/registry/experts/Pages/formulaire%20de%20candidature%20%20%20personnes%20physiques.aspx) (accessed on 13 February 2012).

  169. 169.

    Rule 140.2 of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

  170. 170.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 627.

  171. 171.

    Prosecutor v. Bemba, Decision on the Evidence Disclosure System and Setting a Timetable for Disclosure between the Parties, Case ICC-01/05-01/08, 31 July 2008, paras 33-39.

  172. 172.

    Derham, R. (2010), From Ad Hoc to Hybrid – the Rules and Regulations Governing Reception of Expert Evidence at the International Criminal Court, 14 International Journal of Evidence and Proof, pp. 44-45.

  173. 173.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 627.

  174. 174.

    Articles 54(3)(e) and (f) read: [t]he Prosecutor may:

    • (e) agree not to disclose, at any stage of the proceedings, documents or information that the Prosecutor obtains on the condition of confidentiality and solely for the purpose of generating new evidence, unless the provider of the information consents; and

    • (f) take necessary measures, or request that necessary measures be taken, to ensure the confidentiality of information, the protection of any person or the preservation of evidence.

  175. 175.

    Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 628.

  176. 176.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Appeals Chamber Judgement on the Appeal of the Prosecutor Against the Decision of Trial Chamber I Entitled ‘Decision on the Consequences of Non-Disclosure of Exculpatory Material Covered by Article 54(3)(e) Agreements and the Application to Stay the Prosecution of the Accused, together with Certain Other Issues Raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008,’ Case ICC-01/04-01/06, 21 October 2008, para. 43; Singh, A. (2010), Expert Evidence in Khan. K., Buisman, C. and Gosnel, C. (2010) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 627.

  177. 177.

    Article 21 of the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. ICC-ASP/1/3; Article 48 of the Rome Statute.

  178. 178.

    Article 26(2)(h) of the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. ICC-ASP/1/3.

  179. 179.

    Article 70(1)(a) of the Rome Statute.

  180. 180.

    For example, Rule 91 of the ICTY RPE has reasonably developed procedures for the prosecution of false testimony.

  181. 181.

    Article 70(1)(b) of the Rome Statute.

  182. 182.

    Article 70(1)(c) of the Rome Statute.

  183. 183.

    Rule 162 of the ICC RPE; Derham, R. (2010), From Ad Hoc to Hybrid – the Rules and Regulations Governing Reception of Expert Evidence at the International Criminal Court, 14 International Journal of Evidence and Proof, pp. 51-52.

  184. 184.

    Prosecutor v. Akeyshu, Judgment, ICTR-96-04-T, 2 September 1998, para. 140 [“false testimony requires the necessary mens rea and not a mere wrongful statement”]. However, it is arguable as to whether the ICC would follow the example of the ICTR.

  185. 185.

    Derham, R. (2010), From Ad Hoc to Hybrid – the Rules and Regulations Governing Reception of Expert Evidence at the International Criminal Court, 14 International Journal of Evidence and Proof, p. 52.

  186. 186.

    Rule 166.4 of the ICC RPE.

  187. 187.

    Article 71 of the Rome Statute.

  188. 188.

    Rule 171.1 of the ICC RPE

  189. 189.

    Prosecutor v Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Appeal Chamber, Judgment on appeal by Anto Nobilo against finding of contempt, 30 May 2001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Artur Appazov

Authors
  1. Artur Appazov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Appazov, A. (2016). Expert Evidence in International Criminal Trials. In: Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24340-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24340-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24338-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24340-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation