Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 20 items for :

  • All: "evidence admission" x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All

Abstract

In the Ongwen judgment, the International Criminal Court (icc) deemed ‘highly probative evidence’ the Lord’s Resistance Army radio communications intercepted. However, the Defence had argued that it was unreliable evidence for several reasons. After considering the definition and regulatory framework governing the admission and assessment of documentary evidence at the icc and retracing the road intercept evidence made from Uganda to the Ongwen trial, the article will analyse the issues posed by intercept evidence, including some of the challenges the Defence raised against their reliability. The objective is to call attention to the overlooked concerns the interception of communications during the period to which the charges refer may give rise to at the icc, in particular, in terms of reliability. The article argues that intercepted communications’ peculiar weaknesses require specific attention. As a consequence, their reliability and weight should be assessed with circumspection in the overall evidentiary context.

In: International Criminal Law Review
Author:

, 378, 388, 391, 417–423, 429–437, 441, 447–449, 467–469, 472 evidence admission of 3, 5–6, 30, 45, 104, 119, 122, 133, 135, 186–187, 221, 278, 312–313, 350, 377, 407, 419, 435, 440–441, 460, 473, 501 anonymous 48 appreciation of 6, 188, 192, 435, 460 forensic medical 218 late presentation of 44

In: Vertical Judicial Dialogues in Asylum Cases
Author:

requirements, 282–305 decision on conduct of proceedings, 316–330 determination, 302–305 evidence, admission of, 326–330 factors taken into account, 323–330 fairness of decision, 331 interests of justice test, 316–323 lowest common multiple, 330 part-heard case, absence of judge in, 283–293 record of

In: Protecting Humanity

. 2 The Bemba Case 2.1 Evidence Admission by the icc The legal framework of the icc gives discretion to the Court in respect of rulings on evidence admission and evaluation. Relevance and admissibility can be raised when evidence is submitted before a Chamber, 7 but Article 69(4) states that

In: International Criminal Law Review

—across the United States. Fact-finding by international tribunals, like fact-finding by national courts, can be divided into three parts: production of evidence; admission or rejection of evidence; and evaluation or interpretation of evidence. While international and national courts differ in the ways

In: International Arbitration
Author:

anticipated that such rules will now be developed. • Evidence: Admission of written statements One of the main ways in which the ICTY has sought to expedite trials is by substituting documentary for live evidence on the factual background of a case. The Rules were amended in December of 1998 to add a Rule

In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
Authors: and

proof, which means in practice that the chairing judges have the authority to lay down the burden of proof. Admissible evidence is: documents or written evidence, expert evidence, witness evidence, admissions by parties, and the judge's knowledge. The judge shall determine what facts must be proved

In: Comparative Studies on Governmental Liability in East and Southeast Asia
Author:

adjudicative body can be summarized in three categories: production of evidence; admission or rejection of evidence; and evaluation or interpretation of evidence. 20 In the present case, some general problems lie in the fact-finding process in all three categories. In the first place, as for the production

Open Access
In: The Chinese Journal of Global Governance

the specific conditions that must be met to ensure that the right to a fair trial guaranteed under the echr is not violated, including exclusion of evidence. 12 In any case, regardless of whether a strict or nuanced approach is adopted, the impact of improperly obtained evidence admission at trial

In: European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice

fact, United States courts have consistently refused to ove11urn final arbitral awards because of evidentiary mlings. They have held that the property of evidence admission, even if contrary to judicial rules of evidence, is not for the courts to review.35 As to the issue of the tribunals' powers

In: NAFTA Investment Law and Arbitration