Facts of common knowledge

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Judicial Notice - 16.06.2006 KAREMERA et al.
(ICTR-98-44-AR73(C))

After recalling the case-law on judicial notice of facts of common knowledge,[1] the Appeals Chamber held:

23. Whether a fact qualifies as a “fact of common knowledge” is a legal question.  By definition, it cannot turn on the evidence introduced in a particular case, and so the deferential standard of review ordinarily applied by the Appeals Chamber to the Trial Chamber’s assessment of and inferences from such evidence has no application. Mr. Nzirorera suggests that the Appeals Chamber should defer to the Trial Chamber’s discretion as to “admissibility of evidence” and “the manner in which facts are to be proven at trial”.[2] But the general rule that the Trial Chamber has discretion in those areas is superseded by the specific, mandatory language of Rule 94(A); as noted above, the Trial Chamber has no discretion to determine that a fact, although “of common knowledge”, must nonetheless be proven through evidence at trial.  For these reasons, a Trial Chamber’s decision whether to take judicial notice of a relevant[3] fact under Rule 94(A) is subject to de novo review on appeal.

[1] Decision, para. 22, referring to Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Judgement, 20 May 2005, para. 194.

[2] Nzirorera’s Response, para. 41-42.

[3] As Mr. Nzirorera suggests, see Nzirorera’s Response, para. 41, a Trial Chamber is not obligated to take judicial notice of facts that are not relevant to the case, even if they are “facts of common knowledge”.  Of course, it remains the case that the Trial Chamber “shall not require proof” of such facts, see Rule 94(A), since evidence proving an irrelevant fact would in any event be inadmissible under Rule 89(C) of the Rules.  Cf. Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanović and Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Final Decision on Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts, 20 April 2004 (holding that “before taking judicial notice of these four Definitively Proposed Facts the Chamber is obliged to verify their relevance, pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the Rules”).  Relevance determinations are circumscribed by various standards of law, but within the appropriate legal framework the Trial Chamber enjoys a margin of discretion.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 94 ICTY Rule Rule 94
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Judicial Notice - 16.06.2006 KAREMERA et al.
(ICTR-98-44-AR73(C))

29. […] It is true that “widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population” and “armed conflict not of an international character” are phrases with legal meanings, but they nonetheless describe factual situations and thus can constitute “facts of common knowledge”.  The question is not whether a proposition is put in legal or layman’s terms (so long as the terms are sufficiently well defined such that the accuracy of their application to the described situation is not reasonably in doubt).  The question is whether the proposition can reasonably be disputed.  Neither the Trial Chamber nor any of the Accused has demonstrated any reasonable basis for disputing the facts in question. (emphasis added).

[1] For instance, it is routine for courts to take judicial notice of the existence of a state of war, despite the fact that such a description has a legal meaning.  See, e.g., Mead v. United States, 257 F. 639, 642 (U.S. 9th Cir. Ct. App. 1919); see also infra note 46 (listing other examples of judicial notice incorporating legal concepts).

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 94 ICTY Rule Rule 94
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Judicial Notice - 16.06.2006 KAREMERA et al.
(ICTR-98-44-AR73(C))

30. Likewise, it is not relevant that these facts constitute elements of some of the crimes charged and that such elements must ordinarily be proven by the Prosecution.  There is no exception to Rule 94(A) for elements of offences.  Of course the Rule 94(A) mechanism sometimes will alleviate the Prosecution’s burden to introduce evidence proving certain aspects of its case.  As the Appeals Chamber explained in Semanza, however, it does not change the burden of proof, but simply provides another way for that burden to be met […]. (footnotes omitted).

See also para. 37.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 94 ICTY Rule Rule 94
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Judicial Notice - 16.06.2006 KAREMERA et al.
(ICTR-98-44-AR73(C))

At paras 40-42, the Appeals Chambers explained the differences between judicial notice under Rule 94(A) and judicial notice under Rule 94(B).

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 94 ICTY Rule Rule 94
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Additional Evidence - 01.06.2006 SIMIĆ Blagoje
(IT-95-9-A)

See para. 25:

25. The Appeals Chamber has held that the basis on which judicial notice is taken pursuant to this sub-Rule is that the material is notorious.[1] Facts of common knowledge under Rule 94(A) of the Rules have been considered to encompass common or universally known facts, such as general facts of history, generally known geographical facts and the laws of nature, as well as those facts that are generally known within a tribunal’s territorial jurisdiction.[2] Once a Chamber deems a fact to be of common knowledge, it must also determine that the matter is not the subject of reasonable dispute.[3] […]

[1] Momir Nikolić v. Prosecutor, Case No.: IT-02-60/1-A, Decision on Appellant’s Motion for Judicial Notice, 1 April 2005 (“Nikolić Judicial Notice Decision”), para. 10, referring to Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević, Case No.: IT-02-54-AR73.5, Decision on the Prosecution’s Interlocutory Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s 10 April 2003 Decision on Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts, 28 October 2003, pp. 3 and 4.

[2] Nikolić Judicial Notice Decision, para. 10.

[3] Idem.   

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 94 ICTY Rule Rule 94