Prior personal knowledge » ICTR/ICTY/IRMCT Case Law Database

United Nations | International Residual Mechanism for Criminal TribunalsUN IRMCT

Introduction

The Case Law Database (“CLD”) is a gateway to the jurisprudence of the ICTR, ICTY, and IRMCT Appeals Chambers.

It provides direct access to extracts of key judgements and decisions rendered by the ICTR, ICTY, and IRMCT Appeals Chambers since their inception, as well as to full-text versions of the corresponding appeal judgements and decisions.

Users can conduct quick searches by notions, cases names, titles of filings, date (in year-month-day format), statutes, rules, and other instruments through the “Basic Search” page. In addition, refined searches in all fields of the database can be conducted through the “Advanced Search” feature.

Please note that the CLD does not include confidential decisions and restatements of established case law and does not necessarily contain all notable rulings by the Appeals Chambers of the ICTR, the ICTY, and the IRMCT. For exact numbering of footnotes, refer to full documents.

The CLD is a living tool and its content is being regularly updated. Please help us improve the service by using our feedback form.

Help

Browse the list of legal notion titles using the A-Z index. Click on the notion to show the page containing relevant case law extracts.

Submit Feedback

Please help us improve the service.

You can send ideas to
marshague at un dot org

Thank you very much for your help.

Prior personal knowledge

Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Identification evidence \| Prior personal knowledge	Appeal Judgement - 04.12.2001	KAYISHEMA & RUZINDANA (ICTR-95-1-A)
327. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber finds that the witnesses’ personal knowledge of Ruzindana is not a prerequisite for identification.[1] 328. As noted by the Trial Chamber, “prior knowledge of those identified is another factor that the Trial Chamber may take into account in considering the reliability of witness’ testimonies.”[2] The fact that some of the witnesses did not personally know the accused prior to the events is not at all a sufficient reason to invalidate the testimony of a witness who identified the Accused.[3] show footnotes [1] Refers to Ruzindana’s allegations in his Brief, paras. 44 and 45, para. 48 (witness PP-Muyira Hill), para. 49 (Witnesses HH and W – the Cave), para. 50 (Witness RR – the Mine at Nyiramurengo Hill), para. 56 (Witness MM – Gitwa cellule) para. 57 (Witness II – the vicinity of Muyira Hill). [2] Trial Judgement, para. 71. On the probative value, see Čelebići Appeal Judgement, para. 274. [3] Trial Judgement, para. 71. Download full document