Relevance of the proffered evidence

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Additional Evidence - 15.11.2000 JELISIĆ Goran
(IT-95-10-A)

CONSIDERING that the admission of evidence is in the interests of justice if it is relevant to a material issue, if it is credible and if it is such that it would probably show that the conviction or sentence was unsafe;

[RULE 115 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE WAS AMENDED ON 12 JULY 2002.]

Download full document 		ICTR Rule Rule 115 ICTY Rule Rule 115
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Additional Evidence - 16.10.1998 TADIĆ Duško
(IT-94-1-A)

G.      Interests of Justice

69.     As mentioned above, the Appeals Chamber finds that the following items were not available at trial within the meaning of Rule 115 (A): […] In relation to these items and […] the evidence of witness D.D., it will accordingly be necessary to consider the operation of the criteria relating to the interests of justice.

70.     If the Appeals Chamber at this stage authorises the presentation of additional evidence, it will be for the Chamber at a later stage to decide whether the evidence discloses an “error of fact which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice” within the meaning of Article 25, paragraph 1(b), of the Statute. At this stage, the Chamber cannot pre-empt this decision by definitively deciding that the proposed evidence does or does not disclose “an error of fact which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice”.

71.     The task of the Appeals Chamber at this stage is to apply the somewhat more flexible formula of Rule 115 of the Rules, which requires the Chamber to “authorise the presentation of such evidence if it considers that the interests of justice so require”. For the purposes of this case, the Chamber considers that the interests of justice require admission only if:

          (a) the evidence is relevant to a material issue;

          (b) the evidence is credible; and

          (c) the evidence is such that it would probably show that the conviction was unsafe.

72.     The Appeals Chamber would only add that, in applying these criteria, account has to be taken of the principle of finality of decisions. As mentioned above, the principle would not operate to prevent the admission of evidence that would assist in determining whether there could have been a miscarriage of justice. But clearly the principle does suggest a limit to the admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage.

73.     The Appeals Chamber also considers that, in applying these criteria, any doubt should be resolved in favour of the Appellant in accordance with the principle in dubio pro reo.

[RULE 115 OF THE ICTY RULES WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED ON 12 July 2002, 30 September 2002, and 21 July 2005]

Download full document 		ICTR Statute Article 24 ICTY Statute Article 25 ICTR Rule Rule 115 ICTY Rule Rule 115
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Additional Evidence on Appeal - 02.03.2018 KARADŽIĆ Radovan
(MICT-13-55-A)

Pages 3-4:

 7.          Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism (“Rules”) provides for the admission of additional evidence on appeal. For additional evidence to be admissible under Rule 142(C) of the Rules, the applicant must demonstrate that the additional evidence was not available at trial in any form, or discoverable through the exercise of due diligence.[1] The applicant must also show that the additional evidence is relevant to a material issue at trial and is credible. [2] Once it has been determined that the additional evidence meets these conditions, the Appeals Chamber will determine, in accordance with Rule 142(C) of the Rules, whether it could have been a decisive factor in reaching the verdict.[3] Where the Appeals Chamber finds that the evidence was available at trial, it may still be admissible pursuant to Rule 142(C) of the Rules. However, in such a case, the applicant must demonstrate that the exclusion of the additional evidence would lead to a miscarriage of justice, in that, if it had been admitted at trial, it would have had an impact on the verdict.[4]

8.          In both cases, the applicant bears the burden of identifying with precision the specific finding of fact made by the trial chamber to which the additional evidence pertains, and of specifying with sufficient clarity the impact the additional evidence could or would have had upon the trial chamber’s verdict.[5] An applicant who fails to do so runs the risk that the tendered material will be rejected without detailed consideration.[6]

show footnotes

[1] Augustin Ngirabatware v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-29-A, Decision on Ngirabatware’s Motions for Relief for Rule 73 Violations and Admission of Additional Evidence on Appeal, 21 November 2014 (“Ngirabatware Decision of 21 November 2014”), para. 24. See also Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, MICT-12-24-AR14.1, Decision on Requests for Admission of Additional Evidence on Appeal, 22 September 2016 (“Uwinkindi Decision of 22 September 2016”), para. 5.

[2] Ngirabatware Decision of 21 November 2014, para. 25. See also Uwinkindi Decision of 22 September 2016, para. 5. Evidence is relevant if it relates to findings material to the conviction or sentence, in the sense that those findings were crucial or instrumental to the conviction or sentence, and is credible if it appears to be reasonably capable of belief or reliance. Ngirabatware Decision of 21 November 2014, para. 25.

[3] Ngirabatware Decision of 21 November 2014, para. 26. Cf. Uwinkindi Decision of 22 September 2016, para. 5.

[4] Ngirabatware Decision of 21 November 2014. para. 27. Cf. Uwinkindi Decision of 22 September 2016, para. 6.

[5] Ngirabatware Decision of 21 November 2014, para. 28. Cf. Uwinkindi Decision of 22 September 2016, para. 7.

[6] Ngirabatware Decision of 21 November 2014, para. 28. See also Uwinkindi Decision of 22 September 2016, para. 7. 

Download full document 		IRMCT Rule Rule 142