Specialised knowledge
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal Judgement - 30.01.2015 |
POPOVIĆ et al. (IT-05-88-A) |
|
|
375. […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that the purpose of expert testimony is to supply specialised knowledge that might assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence before it, and that in the ordinary case an expert witness offers a view based on specialised knowledge regarding a technical, scientific or otherwise discrete set of ideas or concepts that is expected to fall outside the lay person’s ken.[1] […] [1] Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 198, citing Semanza Appeal Judgement, para. 303. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Appeal Judgement - 28.11.2007 |
NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) (ICTR-99-52-A) |
|
|
198. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the evidence of an expert witness is meant to provide specialized knowledge – be it a skill or knowledge acquired through training[1] – that may assist the fact finder to understand the evidence presented.[2] The Appeals Chamber recently held: Expert witnesses are ordinarily afforded wide latitude to offer opinions within their expertise; their views need not be based upon firsthand knowledge or experience. Indeed, in the ordinary case the expert witness lacks personal familiarity with the particular case, but instead offers a view based on his or her specialized knowledge regarding a technical, scientific, or otherwise discrete set of ideas or concepts that is expected to lie outside the lay person’s ken.[3] [1] The Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu et al., Case No. ICTR-99-50-T, Oral Ruling on Qualification of Expert Witness Mbonyinkebe, 2 May 2005; The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-T, Oral Decision on the Qualification of Mr. Edmond Babin as Defence Expert Witness, 13 April 2005, para. 5; Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Decision on Prosecution’s Submission of Statement of Expert Witness Ewan Brown, 3 June 2003, p. 4; Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, IT-98-29-T, Decision on the Expert Witness Statements Submitted by the Defence, 27 January 2003, p. 3. [2] Semanza Appeal Judgement, para. 303. See also The Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu et al., Case No. ICTR-99-50-T, Decision on Casimir Bizimungu’s Urgent Motion for the Exclusion of the Report and Testimony of Déo Sebahire Mbonyinkebe (Rule 89(C)), 2 September 2005, para. 11; The Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, Decision on Motion for Exclusion of Expert Witness Statement of Filip Reyntjens, 28 September 2004, para. 8; The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Decision on a Defence Motion for the Appearance of an Accused as an Expert Witness, 9 March 1998, p. 2. [3] Semanza Appeal Judgement, para. 303. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on Expert Witness - 30.01.2008 |
POPOVIĆ et al. (IT-05-88-AR73.2) |
|
|
27. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the evidence of an expert witness is meant to provide some specialized knowledge – be it a skill or knowledge acquired through training[1] – that may assist the fact finder to understand the evidence presented.[2] It is established that: Expert witnesses are ordinarily afforded wide latitude to offer opinions within their expertise; their views need not be based upon firsthand knowledge or experience. Indeed, in the ordinary case the expert witness lacks personal familiarity with the particular case, but instead offers a view based on his or her specialized knowledge regarding a technical, scientific, or otherwise discrete set of ideas or concepts that is expected to lie outside the lay person’s ken.[3] 29. The Appeals Chamber is of the opinion that the fact that Butler may have acquired his knowledge on the organization and the general procedures of the VRS solely as a result of his six years of employment with the Prosecution – an allegation which is not substantiated by the Appellants – does not in itself affect his qualification as an expert. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber underlines the Trial Chamber’s ruling that before admitting Butler’s evidence, it will have to determine, inter alia, “whether there is transparency in the methods and sources used by the expert witness, including the established or assumed facts on which the expert witness relied”.[4] The Appeals Chamber further recalls that firsthand knowledge or experience is not required for qualifying as an expert;[5] thus the Appellants’ argument related to Butler’s lack of working experience with the VRS is without merit. [1] Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 198; Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu et al., Case No. ICTR-99-50-T, Oral Ruling on Qualification of Expert Witness Mbonyinkebe, 2 May 2005; Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-T, Oral Decision on the Qualification of Mr. Edmond Babin as Defence Expert Witness, 13 April 2005, para. 5; Brđanin Decision, p. 4; Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, IT-98-29-T, Decision on the Expert Witness Statements Submitted by the Defence, 27 January 2003, p. 3. [2] Semanza Appeal Judgement [Laurent Semanza v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Judgement, 20 May 2005], para. 303. See also Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 198; Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu et al., Case No. ICTR-99-50-T, Decision on Casimir Bizimungu’s Urgent Motion for the Exclusion of the Report and Testimony of Déo Sebahire Mbonyinkebe (Rule 89(C)), 2 September 2005, para. 11; Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, Decision on Motion for Exclusion of Expert Witness Statement of Filip Reyntjens, 28 September 2004, para. 8; Akayesu Decision, p. 2. [3] Semanza Appeal Judgement, para. 303; Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 198. [4] Impugned Decision, paras 30-31 (footnotes omitted). [5] See, supra, para. 27. |
||