Search Results
Abstract
One of the aims of criminal justice is to qualify the criminal conduct and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. International criminal justice is no exception. Yet, due to the scale of the crimes perpetrated, the time that has usually elapsed between the crimes and the trials, the particular trauma suffered by victims and witnesses, collecting reliable evidence to prove what happened and determine who was responsible is particularly difficult. Although heavily relied upon in international criminal justice, witness evidence is not always accurate: memory can be imprecise and witnesses may be subject to fear, threats or corruption. In this context, scientific evidence – including medical evidence – may prove a sound means of establishing the perpetration of the crimes, of corroborating witness evidence and of assigning individual criminal responsibility. Notwithstanding certain constraints, medical evidence has played a significant role in international criminal justice, in particular before the International Criminal Court. This contribution proposes to critically review the use of medical evidence in international criminal proceedings, both by exposing its inherent limits and by presenting its potential as a useful – even if not indispensable – evidentiary tool.
The International Criminal Law Review publishes in-depth analytical research that deals with these issues. The analysis may cover:
• the substantive and procedural law on the international level;
• important cases from national jurisdictions which have a bearing on general issues;
• criminological and sociological; and,
• historical research.
-
Print Only €1,023.00$1,187.00
-
Print + Online €1,116.00$1,294.00
-
Online only €930.00$1,078.00
-
For further information, contact your sales manager
-
Print Only €310.00$369.00
-
Online only €310.00$369.00
-
For further information, contact our distributor
Abstract
Due to the heinous nature of international crimes, admissible defences in the context of international criminal justice understandably constitute an issue surrounded with controversy. Yet, while International Criminal Law precludes the use of a series of defences, it also admits that certain grounds may exclude individual criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment even in the case of the most serious international crimes. The present study thus proposes to analyse the permissibility of these defences and the availability of such grounds for excluding responsibility by drawing a comparison between Public International Law and International Criminal Law and by highlighting the differences and discrepancies between the two systems. Ultimately, this analysis aims at demonstrating that International Criminal Law, one of Public International Law's children, has now surpassed its parent to become a more sophisticated and a fairer legal and judicial system, for both the defendants and the victims.