Between Fact and Opinion: The Sui Generis Approach to Expert Witness Testimony in International Criminal Trials

It is a fundamental tenet of the law of evidence, spanning all jurisdictions, that witness testimony should ideally be delivered in open court by the individual who observed the event in question, or by the expert whose technical knowledge is relied upon. A notable exception to this principle has emerged in the field of international criminal justice, where courts and tribunals may allow ‘summarising witnesses’ to present a summation of witness testimony. In the case of Ayyash et al., the Special Tribunal for Lebanon extended the principle, allowing voluminous expert opinion evidence to be presented in factual summation. This article analyses such approaches, utilising doctrinal methods alongside empirical Wigmorean analysis, to assess the probity of these sui generis practices. The results are placed in legal and theoretical perspective, demonstrating that international courts and tribunals are departing from an overarching obligation to integrate international and domestic standards in respect of expert testimony.

COVID-19 and International Crimes Trials in Germany

With the appearance of the COVID-19 virus, the world faces new challenges in almost every area of social life. Social distancing and protection measures provide new challenges in business relations. This also holds true for criminal trials in general, and for international criminal trials, in particular. In Germany, several trials concerning charges of crimes under international law, established by the German Code of Crimes Against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch), are currently in progress. In particular, the trial against two former Syrian intelligence officers, which is currently taking place before the Higher Regional Court in Koblenz, has received international attention and will possibly be affected by the restrictions imposed.

Expressing what? The stigmatization of the defendant and the ICC’s institutional interests in the Ongwen case

The potential of international criminal trials to express the wrongfulness of mass atrocities and instil norms of appropriate behaviour within communities has been subject to a lively theoretical debate. This article makes an important empirical contribution by examining the limitations to the expressivist aspiration of international criminal justice in the context of the message communicated by the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor (ICC-OTP) in the Ongwen case. A detailed analysis of the selection of charges, modes of liability, and the overall presentation of the Prosecutor’s arguments at trial suggests that the ICC-OTP’s limited capabilities to apprehend suspects and its dependency on state co-operation risk the excessive stigmatization of the few defendants available for trial for the purpose of demonstrating the Court’s capability of prosecuting notorious criminals. As the only apprehended commander from the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), Dominic Ongwen has been presented by the ICC-OTP as the ‘cause’ of crimes committed in Northern Uganda without due regard for the degree of his alleged involvement in those crimes compared to other LRA commanders, the role of other actors in the conflict, or the significance of his own victimization as a child. Ongwen’s excessive stigmatization expressed the importance of the Ugandan investigation after a decade of showing no results. Yet, it also produced a simplistic narrative which failed to express the complexity of violence in Northern Uganda.

Uma análise das histórias dos Tribunais de Crimes de Massa

Por que os tribunais penais internacionais escrevem histórias sobre as origens e causas dos conflitos armados? Com base em pesquisa empírica original com juízes, promotores, advogados de defesa e testemunhas especializadas em três tribunais penais internacionais, Writing History in International Criminal Trials, livro introduzido no presente artigo, procura entender como o direito e a história são combinados no tribunal. O testemunho histórico agora é parte integrante dos julgamentos internacionais, com promotores e equipes de defesa usando testemunhos históricos para atingir objetivos decididamente legais. No julgamento de Slobodan Milosevic, a promotoria procurou demonstrar intenção especial de cometer genocídio por referência a um animus de longa data, alimentado dentro de uma mentalidade nacionalista. Por sua parte, a defesa convocou historiadores como testemunhas para minar as acusações de responsabilidade superior e para mitigar a sentença, representando os crimes como represálias. Embora os modos legais de conhecer sejam distintos dos da história, os dois são efetivamente combinados em julgamentos internacionais de uma maneira que nos desafia a repensar a relação entre direito e história.

‘We Will Not Go Away’

This chapter studies the participation of victims in international criminal tribunals. Victim participation in international criminal trials has been uneven. Historically, prosecutors often have side-lined victim testimony in favour of documentary or physical evidence or assumed that justice for victims equated to retributive punishment of offenders. In recent decades, however, victims have become more active contributors in criminal investigations and proceedings. Victim participation at all stages of the Hissène Habré trial, for example, suggests a growing trend towards greater victim inclusion in international and national criminal trials. As such, it is incumbent on court personnel, as well as international justice researchers and practitioners, to better understand the diverse needs of victims and how they can be best supported before, during, and after trials.