Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:29:37.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Legal Culture on the Development of International Evidentiary Practice: From the ‘Robing Room’ to the ‘Melting Pot’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2013

JOHN JACKSON  and
YASSIN M’BOGE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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. 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.

Keywords

evidentiary challengesinternational criminal practicelegal cultureprofessional normsinternational courts
Type
HAGUE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: International Criminal Courts and Tribunals: Symposium: Expertise, Uncertainty, and International Law
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 947 - 970
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the tendency to characterize lawyers into law-givers, enlightened policy makers and wise judges, on the one hand, and technicians who make the law work, on the other hand, see Twining, W., ‘Pericles and the Plumber’, in W. Twining, Law in Context: Enlarging a Discipline (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 4.

2 For the importance in a different context of the role that intermediaries play in ‘vernacularizing’ international human rights on to local institutions, see Merry, S., Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Merry, S., ‘Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism: Mapping the Middle’, (2006) 108 American Anthropologist 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 The study was funded by the Society of Legal Scholars, the Socio-Legal Studies Association, and the School of Law, University College Dublin. This paper represents an analysis of the work in Phase I of the study. The fieldwork consisted of 27 semi-structured interviews with judges, prosecutors, defence counsel, and court officials from chambers or the registry. All participants were granted anonymity.

4 Haveman, R., ‘The Context of the Law’, in Haveman, R., Kavran, O., and Nicholls, J. (eds.), Supranational Criminal Law: A System of Sui Generis (2003), 1 at 33–8Google Scholar.

5 See, e.g., Mundis, D. A., ‘From “Common Law” towards “Civil Law”: The Evolution of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, (2001) 14 LJIL 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A. Orie, ‘Accusatorial v. Inquisitorial Approach in International Criminal Proceedings Prior to the Establishment of the ICC and in the Proceedings before the ICC, in A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, and J. R. W. D. Jones (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (2002), 1439; Ambos, K., ‘International Criminal Procedure: “Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” or “Mixed”?’, (2003) 3 International Criminal Law Review 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fairlie, M., ‘The Marriage of Common Law and Continental Law at the ICTY and Its Progeny, Due Process Deficit’, (2004) 4 International Criminal Law Review 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Caianiello, M., ‘Law of Evidence at the International Criminal Court: Blending Accusatorial and Inquisitorial Models, (2011) 36 N. C. J. Int’l & Com Reg 287Google Scholar; Jackson, J. D. and Summers, S., The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 5.

6 Murphy, P., ‘Excluding Justice or Facilitating Justice? International Criminal Law Would Benefit from Rules of Evidence, (2008) 12 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 1, 3Google Scholar.

7 Cassese, A., International Criminal Law (2003), 377–8Google Scholar.

8 See Morris, V. and Scharf, M., An Insider's Guide to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: A Documentary History and Analysis (1995), 177Google Scholar.

9 See Friman, H., ‘Inspiration from the International Criminal Tribunals When Developing Law on Evidence for the International Criminal Court’, (2003) 3 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 373CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Linton, S., ‘Rising from the Ashes: The Creation of a Viable Criminal Justice System in East Timor’, (2001) 25 Melbourne University Law Review 123Google Scholar; Williams, S., ‘The Cambodian Extraordinary Chamber: A Dangerous Precedent for International Justice’, (2004) 53International and Comparative Law Quarterly 227Google Scholar; Wetzel, J. E. and Mitri, Y., ‘The Special Tribunal for Lebanon: A Court “Off the Shelf” for a Divided Country’, (2008) 7Law and Practice of International Court and Tribunals 81Google Scholar.

11 Combs, N., Fact-Finding without Facts: The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Convictions (2010), 289–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Ibid., chs. 2–5.

13 Ibid., at 297.

14 Langer, M., ‘The Rise of Managerial Judging in International Criminal Law’, (2004) 53 American Journal of Comparative Law 835CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See, e.g., K. Khan, C. Buisman, and C. Gosnell (eds.), Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice (2010).

16 See, e.g., C. Grace and P. Wilkinson, Sociological Inquiry and Legal Phenomena (1978); and McBarnet, D., ‘False Dichotomies in Criminal Justice Research’, in Baldwin, J. and Bottomley, A. (eds.), Criminal Justice: Selected Readings (1978)Google Scholar.

17 See M. Rheinstein, Introduction to Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society (1954), 24–30; H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (1994), 88–91. C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), 5–10.

18 Langer, M., ‘From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations: The Globalization of Plea Bargaining and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Procedure’, (2004) 45 Harvard International Law Journal 1Google Scholar, n. 33.

19 D. Nelken, Comparative Criminal Justice (2010), 7. Nelken provides an illustration of how efforts to develop international standards must face the challenges of how these are disseminated by professional actors working within different legal cultures in Nelken, D., ‘Can Prosecutors Be Too Independent? An Italian Case Study’, in Daems, T., van Zyl Smit, D., and Spracken, S. (eds.), European Penology? (2013), 249Google Scholar.

20 Friedman distinguishes between legal culture and legal substance, which comprises the actual rules or norms used by institutions. See Friedman, L., Law and Society (1977), 6–7Google Scholar.

21 See the exchange between R. Cotterrell, ‘The Concept of Legal Culture’ and L. M. Friedman, ‘The Concept of Legal Culture: A Reply’, in D. Nelken, Contrasting Legal Cultures (1997), 13, 33.

22 Byrne, R., ‘The New Public International Lawyer and the Hidden Art of International Criminal Trial Practice’, (2010) 25 Connecticut Journal of International Law 243Google Scholar, at 248.

23 Pakes, F. J., ‘Styles of Procedure at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, (2003) 17 Perspectives in Law & Psychology 309CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The two trials compared were Prosecutor v. Tadić and Prosecutor v. Blaškić.

24 Respondent 5, Judge, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

25 Respondent 5, Judge, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

26 Respondent 5, Judge, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

27 Jackson and Summers, supra note 5, 124–31.

28 Cited in Tochilovsky, V., ‘Rules of Procedure for the Internationeal Criminal Court: Problems to Address in the Light of the Experience of the Ad Hoc Tribunals’, (1999) Netherlands International Law Review 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 350. See Prosecutor v. Kupreškić Transcript, Case No. IT-95-16-T, 1220-1.

29 Respondent 2, Judge, The Hague, 20 September 2011.

30 Respondent 2, Judge, The Hague, 20 September 2011.

31 Respondent 3, Court Official, The Hague, 20 September 2011.

32 Ibid.

33 Respondent 2, Judge, The Hague, 20 September 2011.

34 Respondent 10, Prosecutor, The Hague, 22 September 2011.

35 Boas, G., ‘Creating Laws of Evidence for International Criminal Law: The ICTY and the Principle of Flexibility’, (2001) 12 Criminal Law Forum 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Respondent 16, Prosecutor, The Hague, 16 April 2012.

37 Respondent 16, Prosecutor, The Hague, 16 April 2012.

38 C. Gosnell, ‘Admissibility of Evidence’, in Khan, Buisman, and Gosnell supra note 15, at 375, 396.

39 Respondent 8, Prosecutor, The Hague, 22 September 2011.

40 Respondent 10, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

41 Respondent 7, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

42 Respondent 16, Prosecutor, The Hague, 16 April 2012.

43 Ibid.

44 Respondent 17, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 April 2012. The ICTY eventually came to recognize a plea agreement procedure: see RPE62. See also V. Tochilovsky, ‘The Nature and Evolution of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, in Khan, Buisman, and Gosnell supra note 15, at 174–7.

45 Prosecutors’ powers to collect evidence and conduct investigations against the wishes of the state are limited: see Part 9 of the ICC Statute. See A. Alamuddin, ‘Collection of Evidence’, in Khan, Buisman, and Gosnell supra note 15, at 231, 246.

46 Respondent 8, Prosecutor, The Hague 22 September 2011.

47 Respondent 6, Prosecutor; Respondent 8, Prosecutor; Respondent 10, The Hague, 21–2 September 2011.

48 Respondent 8, Prosecutor, The Hague, 22 September 2011.

49 Respondent 8, Prosecutor, The Hague, 22 September 2011.

50 According to the Open Society Justice Initiative, ‘Intermediaries perform a range of functions which are necessary for the ICC to do its work effectively. This may include, for example, assisting prosecution or defense investigators in identifying evidentiary leads and helping to contact potential witnesses. Intermediaries may help to raise awareness among affected communities about the rights of victims to participate in ICC proceedings, and assist victims in filling out official paperwork, or in securing psychosocial services, security, and legal services. More generally, intermediaries help the Court conduct outreach or provide public information in countries in which ICC investigations are taking place.’ Open Society Justice Initiative, Briefing Papers, Intermediaries and the International Criminal Court: A Role for the Assembly of States Parties (December 2011). Available at www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/intermediaries-20111212.pdf.

51 Respondent 8, Prosecutor, The Hague, 22 September 2011.

52 Respondent 1, Defence, The Hague, 19 September 2011.

53 Respondent 7, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

54 ICTY Statute Art. 18(3); ICTR Statute Art. 17(3); RPE 42(B) of both tribunals provides the questioning of a suspect during investigation shall not proceed without the presence of counsel unless the suspect has voluntarily waived his right to counsel. In case of waiver, if the suspect subsequently expresses a desire for counsel, questioning shall thereupon cease, and shall only resume when the suspect has obtained or been assigned counsel. See also Art. 55 ICC Statute.

55 Prosecutor v. Delalić, Decision on Zdravko Mučić's Motion for the Exclusion of Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 2 September 1997. Cf. Prosecutor v. Katanga (Decision on the Confirmation of Charges), ICC-01/04-01/07, 30 September 2008, paras. 97–99.

56 Respondent 7, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

57 Respondent 7, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

58 Respondent 1, Defence, The Hague, 19 September 2011.

59 Respondent 18, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 April 2012.

60 Respondent 18, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 April 2012.

61 Respondent 18, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 April 2012.

62 Respondent 17, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 April 2012.

63 Respondent 16, Prosecutor, The Hague, 16 April 2012.

64 See ICTY RPE 71.

65 Respondent 17, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 April 2012. Art. 56 Rome Statute governs the role of the pre-trial chamber in relation to a unique investigative opportunity.

66 Respondent 17, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 April 2012.

67 Prosecutor v. Haradinaj, Decision on Defence Request for Audio-Recording of Prosecution Witness Proofing Sessions, Case No. IT-04-84-T, 23 May 2007, para. 8.

68 See Vasiliev, S., ‘Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States’, (2011) 9 (1)International Commentary on EvidenceGoogle Scholar.

69 See Karemaker, R., Taylor, B. D. III, and Pittman, T. W., ‘Witness Proofing in International Criminal Tribunals: A Critical Analysis of Widening Procedural Divergence’, (2008) 21 LJIL 683Google Scholar; Ambos, K., ‘“Witness Proofing” before the International Criminal Court: A Reply to Karemaker, Taylor, and Pittman’, (2008) 21 LJIL 911CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R. Karemaker, B. D. Taylor III, and T.W. Pittman, ‘A Response to Ambos’, (2008) 97, Jordash, W., ‘The Practice of “Witness Proofing” in International Criminal Tribunals: Why the International Criminal Court Should Prohibit the Practice’, (2009) 22 LJIL 501CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vasiliev, S., ‘Proofing the Ban on “Witness Proofing”: Did the ICC Get it Right?’, (2009) 20 Criminal Law Forum 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skilbeck, R., ‘Frankenstein's Monster: Creating a New International Procedure’, (2010) 8 JICJ 451Google Scholar; Jackson and Summers, supra note 5, 141–2.

70 Prosecutor v. Milutinović, Decision on Ojdanić Motion to Prohibit Witness Proofing, Case No. IT-05-87-T, 12 December 2006; Prosecutor v. Karemera, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Witness Proofing, ICTR-98-44-AR72.8, 11 May 2007.

71 Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Practices of Witness Familiarization and Witness Proofing, ICC-01/04-01/06-679, 8 November 2006; Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision Regarding the Practices Used to Prepare and Familiarize Witnesses for Giving Testimony at Trial, ICC-01/04-01/06, 30 November 2007.

72 Respondent 18, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 April 2012.

73 Respondents 6. 8, 12, 16, 17, The Hague, 21–2 September 2011; 16–17 April 2012.

74 Respondent 16, Prosecutor, The Hague, 16 April 2012.

75 On 18 November 2010, TC III adopted a protocol submitted by the Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU) on witness familiarization aimed at assisting witnesses prior to and during the trial. See Decision on the Unified Protocol on the Practices Used to Prepare and Familiarise Witnesses for Giving Testimony at Trial, ICC-01/05-01/08-1016, 18 November 2010, at www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc969083.pdf. See also ‘Victims and Witnesses Unit's Unified Protocol on the Practices Used to Prepare and Familiarise Witnesses for Giving Testimony at Trial’, 22 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-972, at www.icc-pi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc957501.pdf.

76 Respondent 12, Prosecutor, The Hague, 23 September 2011.

77 See generally Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A., Criminal Evidence (2010), 338Google Scholar.

78 See Prosecutor v. Limaj, Decision on the Prosecution's Motions to Admit Prior Statements as Substantive Evidence, Case No. IT-03-66-T, T. Ch., 25 April 2006. These rules derive from Section 3 of the English Criminal Procedure Act 1865.

79 See Prosecutor v. Popović, Decision on Appeals against Decision on Impeachment of a Party's Own Witness, Case No. IT-05-88-AR73.3, A.C., 1 February 2008.

80 Respondent 1, Defence, The Hague, 19 September 2011.

81 See Ambos, K., ‘“Witness Proofing” before the ICC: Neither Legally Admissible nor Necessary’, in Stahn, C. and Sluiter, G. (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (2009), 599Google Scholar.

82 Respondent 2, Judge, The Hague, 20 September 2011.

83 Respondent 6, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011; Respondent 18, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 April 2012.

84 Respondent 5, Judge, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

85 Respondent 6, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

86 Respondent 6, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

87 Respondent 14, Court Official, The Hague, 23 September 2011.

88 Respondent 18, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 April 2012.

89 Respondent 12, Prosecutor, The Hague, 23 September 2011.

90 Langer, supra note 14.

91 Respondent 7, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

92 Respondent 2, Judge, The Hague, 20 September 2011; Respondent 5, Judge, The Hague, 21 September 2011. In the first case before the Rwandan tribunal, the Trial Chamber ordered all available prosecution written statements to be submitted to the tribunal (Prosecutor v. Alayesu, Decision by the Tribunal on Its Request to the Prosecutor to Submit the Written Witness Statements, Case No. ICTR 96-4-T, 28 January 1997) and in the later case of Prosecutor v. Dokmanović, Order of 28 November 1997, Case No. IT-95-13a-PT, TCH, 28 November 1997 the ICTY followed suit.

93 Respondent 2, Judge, The Hague, 20 September 2011.

94 Respondent 6, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

95 Respondent 2, Judge, The Hague, 20 September 2011.

96 For instance Respondent 5, Judge, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

97 Respondent 20, Defence, The Hague, 18 April 2012.

98 Respondent 20, Defence, The Hague, 18 April 2012.

99 Respondent 3, Court Official, The Hague, 20 September 2011.

100 Respondent 8, Prosecutor, The Hague, 22 September 2011.

101 Prosecutor v. Bemba Gongo, Judgment on the Appeals of Mr Bemba Gombo and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber III Entitled ‘Decision on the Admission into Evidence of Materials Contained in the Prosecution's List of Evidence’, ICC-01/08OA5OA6, A. Ch., 3 May 2011.

102 Respondent 10, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

103 McEvoy, K., ‘What Did the Lawyers Do during the War? Neutrality, Conflict and the Culture of Quietism’, (2011) 74 MLR 350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Ibid., 379.

105 Respondent 7, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

106 Respondent 7, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

107 Respondent 7, Prosecutor, The Hague, 21 September 2011.

108 Respondent 17, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 September 2012.

109 Respondent 17, Prosecutor, The Hague, 17 September 2012.

110 Respondent 12, Prosecutor, The Hague, 23 September 2011.

111 Respondent 16, Prosecutor, The Hague, 16 April 2012.

112 International Law Association Study Group, ‘Hague Principles on Ethical Standards for Counsel Appearing before International Courts and Tribunals’, (2011) 10 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 1Google Scholar.

113 See Sarvarian, A., ‘Ethical Standards for Prosecution and Defence Counsel before International Courts: The Legacy of Nuremberg’, (2012) 10 JICJ 423Google Scholar.

114 Respondent 1, Defence, The Hague, 19 September 2011.

115 On the appointment of judges see McKenzie, R. et al., Selecting International Judges (2010)Google Scholar. For discussion of the evolving regime on the professional conduct of lawyers acting before the International Criminal Court, see Gut, T., Counsel Misconduct before the International Criminal Court (2012)Google Scholar.

116 UNICRI, ICTY Manual on Developed Practices (2009).

117 Reydans, L., Wouters, J., and Ryngaert, C. (eds.), International Prosecutors (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. the recent study of prosecution systems across the European Union: K. Ligeti (ed.), Towards a Prosecutor for the European Union, Vol. 1, A Comparative Analysis (2013).

118 Damaška, M., ‘What Is the Point of International Criminal Justice’, (2008) 83Chicago-Kent Law Review 329Google Scholar.