Chapter 7 reveals that Trial Chambers take a cavalier attitude toward the testimonial deficiencies described in earlier chapters. Although Trial Chambers do discredit witness testimony that is hopelessly vague or inconsistent, they ignore many severe testimonial deficiencies, they minimize the effect of others, and they explain away still others on the basis of innocent causes. In sum, Trial Chambers often seem content to base convictions on highly problematic witness testimony. As a result of these practices, the Trial Chambers under study fail to find reasonable doubt in some of the most doubtful instances and, as a consequence, convict just about every defendant who comes before them. Indeed, a close examination of tribunal judgments and the testimony on which those judgments are said to be based appears to reveal a troubling proconviction bias.

This chapter explores the factors that contribute to that ostensible proconviction bias. I begin in Section 8.A with a discussion of politics. International criminal tribunals are intensely political institutions. From the very fact of their creation to their budgets, their estimated life spans, the targets of their investigations, and the selection of defendants over which they gain custody, global politics plays a role. Political considerations rarely appear to govern the disposition of particular cases; but, as I discuss in Section 8.A, they do operate indirectly to bias the Trial Chambers in favor of conviction. In Section 8.B, I turn to the backgrounds of the judges and explore the ways in which they might contribute to the proconviction bias.