Minor inconsistencies
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal Judgement - 19.07.2010 |
HARADINAJ et al. (IT-04-84-A) |
|
|
129. The Appeals Chamber also recalls that the Trial Chamber exercises considerable discretion in addressing minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness. However, this discretion must be reconciled with the right of each accused to a reasoned opinion. In this regard, the Appeals Chamber has stated: It is to be presumed that the Trial Chamber evaluated all of the evidence presented to it, as long as there is no indication that the Trial Chamber completely disregarded any particular piece of evidence. There may be an indication of disregard when evidence which is clearly relevant to the finding is not addressed by the Trial Chamber’s reasoning, but not every inconsistency which the Trial Chamber failed to discuss renders its opinion defective. Considering the fact that minor inconsistencies commonly occur in witness testimony without rendering it unreliable, it is within the discretion of the Trial Chamber to evaluate it and to consider whether the evidence as a whole is credible, without explaining its decision in every detail. If the Trial Chamber did not refer to the evidence given by a witness, even if it is in contradiction to the Trial Chamber’s finding, it is to be presumed that the Trial Chamber assessed and weighed the evidence, but found that the evidence did not prevent it from arriving at its actual findings.[1] Thus, although a Trial Chamber is not required to provide every detail of its assessment of minor inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, neither can it completely disregard all inconsistencies. [ see also para. 252 of the Appeals Judgement] [1] Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 23 (internal citation omitted). |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Appeal Judgement - 14.12.2011 |
NTAWUKULILYAYO Dominique (ICTR-05-82-A) |
|
|
21. The Appeals Chamber recalls that a Trial Chamber has full discretion to assess the appropriate credibility and weight to be accorded to the testimony of a witness;[1] corroboration is one of many potential factors relevant to this assessment.[2] A Trial Chamber retains discretion to decide, in the circumstances of each case, whether corroboration of evidence is necessary and to rely on uncorroborated, but otherwise credible, witness testimony.[3] […] 24. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber recalls that two prima facie credible testimonies need not be identical in all aspects or describe the same fact in the same way in order to be corroborative.[4] Every witness presents what he has seen from his own point of view at the time of the events, or according to how he understood the events recounted by others.[5] It follows that corroboration may exist even when some details differ between testimonies, provided that no credible testimony describes the facts in question in a way which is not compatible with the description given in another credible testimony.[6] [1] Nchamihigo Appeal Judgement, para. 47; Muvunyi Appeal Judgement of 1 April 2011, para. 56; Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 194. [2] Nchamihigo Appeal Judgement, para. 47; Simba Appeal Judgement, para. 24, quoting Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 132. [3] Karera Appeal Judgement, para. 45. See also Renzaho Appeal Judgement, para. 556; Nchamihigo Appeal Judgement, para. 42; Muvunyi Appeal Judgement of 29 August 2008, para. 128. [4] Munyakazi Appeal Judgement, para. 103; Bikindi Appeal Judgement, para. 81, citing Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 428. [5] Munyakazi Appeal Judgement, para. 103, citing Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 428; Bikindi Appeal Judgement, para. 81; Karera Appeal Judgement, paras. 173, 192. [6] Munyakazi Appeal Judgement, para. 71, citing Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 428; Setako Appeal Judgement, para. 31; Rukundo Appeal Judgement, para. 201; Bikindi Appeal Judgement, para. 81. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Appeal Judgement - 20.10.2010 |
RUKUNDO Emmanuel (ICTR-2001-70-A) |
|
|
81. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that minor inconsistencies commonly occur in witness testimony without rendering the testimony unreliable and that it is within the discretion of the Trial Chamber to evaluate such inconsistencies and to consider whether the evidence as a whole is credible, without explaining its decision in every detail.[1] [1] Karera Appeal Judgement, para. 174; Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 23. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Appeal Judgement - 04.12.2012 |
LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ (IT-98-32/1-A) |
|
|
135. The Appeals Chamber recalls that minor inconsistencies commonly occur in witness testimony without rendering it unreliable.[1] It is within the discretion of a trial chamber to evaluate discrepancies and to consider the credibility of the evidence as a whole, without explaining every detail of its decision.[2] The Appeals Chamber recalls that a trial chamber is required to “carefully articulate the factors relied upon in support of the identification of the accused and adequately address any significant factors impacting negatively on the reliability of the identification evidence”.[3] A trial chamber should consider whether there is inconsistent or inaccurate testimony concerning an accused’s physical characteristics,[4] or any other evidence regarding an accused’s identity which may be decisive in a trial chamber’s decision to rely on the identification evidence.[5] [1] Haradinaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 134. [2] See supra [Appeal Judgement,] para. 112. [3] Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 39. [4] Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 40. [5] See Furundžija Appeal Judgement, para. 107. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on Additional Evidence - 30.06.2005 |
GALIĆ Stanislav (IT-98-29-A) |
|
|
73. The Appeals Chamber notes that it is normal for a witness who testified in several trials about the same event or occurrence to focus on different aspects of that event, depending on the identity of the person at trial and the questions posed to the witness.[1] Therefore, not every discrepancy may undermine a witness’s credibility. […] [1] Prosecutor v. Elizaphan and Gérard Ntakirutimana, Case Nos. ICTR 96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Reasons for the Decision on Request for Admission of Additional Evidence, 8 September 2004, para. 31. |
||