National rules of evidence
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
---|---|---|
Appeal Judgement - 19.05.2010 |
BOŠKOSKI & TARČULOVSKI (IT-04-82-A) |
|
193. The Appeals Chamber recalls that Rule 89(A) of the Rules specifically provides that the Tribunal is not bound by national rules of evidence.[1] Furthermore, the Tribunal’s jurisprudence confirms that evidence inadmissible under domestic law is not necessarily inadmissible in proceedings before the Tribunal.[2] [1] The Appeals Chamber notes with approval the Prosecution Response Brief, para. 166 (fn. 545). [2] See Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-AR73, Decision on Prosecutor’s Appeal on Admissibility of Evidence, 16 February 1999, para. 19; Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Decision on the Defence “Objection to Intercept Evidence”, 3 October 2003, paras 53-54; Orić Order of 21 October 2004, para. 8. |
ICTR Rule Rule 89(A) ICTY Rule Rule 89(A) | |
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
Appeal Judgement - 20.02.2001 |
DELALIĆ et al. (Čelebići) (IT-96-21-A) |
|
538. […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that reference to principles applied in national jurisdictions can be of assistance to both Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber in interpreting provisions of the Statute and the Rules.[1] However, Rule 89(A) of the Rules expressly provides that the Chambers “shall not be bound by national rules of evidence.” What is of primary importance is that a Trial Chamber “apply rules of evidence which will best favour a fair determination of the matter before it and are consonant with the spirit of the Statute and the general principles of law.”[2] The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber found that implicit in this principle was “the application of national rules of evidence by the Trial Chamber.”[3] On the contrary, the Appeals Chamber confirms that rules of evidence as expressly provided in the Rules should be primarily applied, with the assistance of national principles only if necessary for guidance in the interpretation of these Rules. [1] See for example, Furundžija Appeal Judgement, paras 183-188; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para 186. [2] Rule 89(B) of the Rules. Although strictly speaking this relates to “cases not otherwise provided for” in Section 3 of the Rules (the title being “Rules of Evidence”) nevertheless, the general principle is important. See Prosecutor v Kordić and Čerkez, Decision on Appeal Regarding the Admission into Evidence of Seven Affidavits and One Formal Statement, Case No IT-95-14/2-AR73.6, 18 Sept 2000, para 22. See also [Čelebići Case, Prosecution’s Appeal Brief, 2 July 1999], paras 12.11 and 16.11. [3] [Čelebići Case, Decision on Zdravko Mucić’s Motion for the Exclusion of Evidence, 2 Sept 1997], para 34. |
ICTR Rule Rule 89(A) ICTY Rule Rule 89(A) |