Examining theExclusionary Rule of Evidence in International Criminal Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 MA. in Criminal Law and criminology, Humanity Faculty, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

2 Asociate Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of international Law, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

Abstract

The importance of maintaining the fairness of proceedings and protecting the rights of the accused have led various criminal justice systems to provide for special rules to the effect of ensuring fair trial . The exclusionary rule of evidence is one of the most important  safeguards-provisions of these regulations, which makes it impossible to cite evidence obtained in an unauthorized manner in the court. Despite the fact that the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, bear the task of prosecution of the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes, they have not  overlooked the rights of the accused. According to Art 95 of rules of procedure and evidence of ICTR and ICTY, the exclusion of evidence obtained through unauthorized methods does not necessarily lead to exclusion of evidence, except when the methods used to obtain evidence cast substantial doubt on reliability of evidence or damage the integrity of the proceedings. The conditions set forth in this article, which their authenication have been granted to the discretion of judges, gives the rule an optional nature and restricts its scope to some extent. This solution is the result of international criminal tribunals' efforts in striking a balance between the rights of the accused and victim which with all its ambiguity in drawing the scope of the rule has been adopted by the ICC.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Tadayyon, Abbas, (2008) “Theory of Exclusionary Rule in Criminal Procedure (By Emphasis on France Law)”  Azad Legal Researches, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 76-94.(In Persian)
  2. Zeraat, Abbas, (2012) Nullity in Criminal Procedure, Mizan Legal Foundation, Tehran.(In Persian)
  3. Sabouripour, Mahdi (2015)“The Exclusionary Rule (The Principle of Rejecting Evidences) in Law of the United States and Comparing with the Similar Sanctions in the Law of Iran”, Criminal Law Doctrines,Vol. 9, Spring & Summer, pp. 129-154.(In Persian)
  4. Farajiha, Mohammad &  Moghadasi, Mohammad Bagher (2008) “Comparative Approach to the Exclusionary Rule in the Common Law and Iran’s Criminal Justice System”, Comparative Law Researches, Vol. 12, N0. 3, Tom 58, autumn, pp. 113-144. (In Persian)
  5. Moazenzadegan, Hassan Ali & Soheilmoghadam, Sahar (2016-2017) “Exclusionary Rule on Criminal Procedure (By Emphasis on American Law)”, Criminal Law and Criminology Studies, Vol. 3, No 2, Autumn & Winter, pp. 243-267.(In Persian)
  6. Alamuddin, Amal, (2010), “Collection of Evidence”, In Khan K, Buisman C, Gosnell C (eds.) Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 231–305
  1. Ambos, Kai, (2003), “International Criminal      Procedure: Adversarial, Inquisitorial or mixed?”, International Criminal      Law Review, Vol. 3, pp. 1-37
  2. Beller, Brian, (2003), “A Comparative Study of      Exclusion of Evidence on the Grounds of the Means by which it was      Obtained”, Case Western Reserve University Scholl of Law International War      Crimes Project, Iss. 14
  3. Boas, Gideon, et al, (2011), “International Criminal      Procedure”, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  4. Brooke, David Anthony, (1999), “Confessions,      Illegally-Improperly Obtained Evidence and Entrapment under The Police and      Criminal Evidence act 1984: Changing Judicial and Public Attitudes to The      Police and Criminal Investigations”, PHD. Thesis, University of London
  5. Charter of the International Military Tribunal,      1945.
  6. Choo, Andrew and Susan Nash, (2007), “Improperly      Obtained Evidence in the Commonwealth”, The International Journal of      Evidence and Proof, Vol. 11, pp. 75-105
  7. Choo, Andrew, (2013), “England and Wales: Fair Trial      Analysis and the Presumed Admissibility of Physical Evidence”, In Thaman,      C. Stephen, “Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law”, iusgentium,      Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, Vol. 20, pp. 331-354
  8. Cryer, Robert, et al, (2010), “An Introduction to      International Criminal Law and Procedure”, Second edition, Cambridge,      Cambridge University Press
  9. Einarsdottir, KatrinOlof, (2010), “Comparing the      Rules of Evidence Applicable Before the ICTY, ICTR and the ICC”,      Meistararitgerðtil Mag. Jur. prófs í lögfræði
  10. Hsieh, Kuo-Hsing, (2014), “The Exclusionary Rule of      Evidence: A Comparative Analysis and Proposals for Reform”,      AshgatePublishing, International and Comparative Criminal Justice Series,      England, available at www.ashgate.com
  11. International Military Tribunal for the Far East,      1946
  12. Keane, Adrian, McKeown, Paul, (2011), “The modern      law of evidence”, 9th edition, Oxford University press, London
  13. Madden, Micael, (2014), “The Exclusion of Improperly      Obtained Evidence at the International Criminal Court”, Master of Law      Thesis, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada
  14. Mellifont, Kerri Anne, (2007), “Australian Exclusionary      Rule”, DSc. Thesis on Juridical Science, Queensland University of      Technology
  15. Rajamae, Heidi, (2011), “Legality of a Contractual      Waiver of Human Rights in the European context”, Master Thesis in      International Human Right Law, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
  16. Roach, Kent, (1999), “Four Models of Criminal      Process”, Journal of Criminal Law and criminology, Vol. 89, Iss. 2, pp.      671-716
  17. Schabas, William A., (1997). “Sentencing by      International Tribunals: A Human Rights Approach”, Duke Journal of Comparative      and International Law, Vol. 7, pp. 461-517
  18. Sharma, S.N, (2016), “Toward Crime Control Model”,      Journal of Indian Law Institute, Vol. 49, pp. 543-550
  19. Slobogin, Christopher. (2013), “A Comparative      Perspective on the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Cases”,      Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper, No. 13-21
  20. Thaman, C. Stephen, (2013), “Balancing Truth Against      Human Rights: A Theory of Modern Exclusionary Rules”, In Thaman C.      Stephen, “Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law”,iusgentium, Comparative      Perspectives on Law and Justice, Vol. 20, pp. 403-444
  21. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Report, Cm      2263, (1993), London: HMSO
  22. Tyler, R. Tom, (1990), “Why People Obey the Law”,      Yale University press, New Haven and London
  23. Viebig, Petra, (2016), “Illicitly Obtained Evidence      at the International Criminal Court”, Asser Publishing, International      Criminal Justice Series, Vol. 4, available at www.springer.com

 

Cases

  1. Map v. Ohio, Case No. 367, U.S. 643, 19 June 1961
  2. Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No, ICC-01/04-01/07-2635 -PT, 17 December 2010
  3. Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-1981-T, 24 June 2009
  4. R v. Grant, Case No. 2 S.C.R. 353, 17 July 2009
  5. Weeks v. United States, Case No. 232, U.S. 383, 24 February 1914
  1. Olmstead v. United States, Case No. 277 U.S. 438,      485, 4 June 1928
  2. Prosecutor v. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al, Case      No. ICTR-00-56-T, 22 September 2008
  3. Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic´ and Mario Čerkez, Case      No. IT-95-14-2-T, 25 June 1999
  4. Prosecutor v. DraganNikolić, Case No. IT-94-2-PT, 9      October 2002
  5. Prosecutor v. EdouardKarmera et al, Case No.      ICTR-98-44-T, 2 November 2007
  1. Prosecutor v. Jean-BoscoBarayagwiza, Case No.      ICTR-97-19-A, 3 November 1999
  1. Prosecutor v. MicoStanisic and Zupljanin, Case No.      ICTR-08-91-T, 16 December 2009
  2. Prosecutor v. Milan Martic, Case No IT-95-11-T, 19      January 2006
  3. Prosecutor      v. RadoslavBrdjanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, 1 September 2004.
  4. Prosecutor v. RadoslavBrdjanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T,      3 October 2003
  5. Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic, Case No.      IT-95-5/18-T, 30 September 2010
  6. Prosecutor v. ZdravkoMucic, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 9      February 1998
  7. Prosecutor v. ZejnilDelalic et al, Case No,      IT-96-21-T, 2 September 1997
  8. Prosecutor v. ZejnilDelalic et al, Case No.      IT-96-21-A, 20 February 2001
  9. Prosecutor v. ZejnilDelalic et al, Case No.      IT-96-21-T, 2 September 1999
  10. Prosecutor v. ZejnilDelalic et al, Case No. IT-96-21-T,      25 September 1997
  11. Prosecutor v. ZejnilDelalic et al, Case No.      IT-96-21-T, 8 September 1997
  12. Prosecutor v.ZoranKupreškic´ et al, Case No.      IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000
  1. Scoppola v. Italy, Case No. ECTHR. (no. 2) [GC], no.      10249/03, 17 September 2009

 

Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 10, Issue 3 - Serial Number 29
November 2018
Pages 100-130

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics