No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Digital evidence and fair trial rights at the International Criminal Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 March 2023
Abstract
International criminal proceedings are witnessing an increase in the use of digital sources of evidence at trial, and it is expected that digital evidence will shape the outcome of upcoming decisions of international criminal tribunals. Digital footage may arguably enhance the efficiency of international crimes investigations. However, the high expertise required to access, analyse, and assess digital materials may widen the gap between the prosecution and the defence, thus undermining fair trial rights. This article examines, in the context of proceedings before the International Criminal Court, the impact that the overreliance on digital evidence may have on the principle of equality of arms, and how such a situation might be alleviated.
Keywords
- Type
- ORIGINAL ARTICLE
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law in association with the Grotius Centre for International Law, Leiden University
Footnotes
1
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s affiliated institution. The author is solely responsible for the content of this article, and the institution is not responsible for any errors or omissions. This article is intended for academic purposes only and should not be taken as the institution’s position on the topic.
References
2 J. Hendrix, ‘Ukraine May Mark a Turning Point in Documenting War Crimes’, Just Security, 28 March 2022, available at www.justsecurity.org/80871/ukraine-may-mark-a-turning-point-in-documenting-war-crimes/.
3 The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Judgment and Sentence, ICC-01/12-01/15, 27 September 2016.
4 L. Freeman, ‘Digital Evidence and War Crimes Prosecutions: The Impact of Digital Technologies on International Criminal Investigations and Trials’, (2018) 41 Fordham International Law Journal 283, at 316.
5 The Prosecutor v. Salim Jamil Ayyash, Sentencing Judgment, STL-11-01/S/TC, 11 December 2020, paras. 11–27, 43, 140.
6 The Prosecutor v. Salim Jamil Ayyash et al., Decision on Appeal by Counsel for Mr. Oneissi against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on the Legality of the Transfer of Call Data Records, STL-11-01/T/AC/AR126.9, 28 July 2015, paras. 3–4.
7 M. Novak, J. Grier and D. Gonzales, ‘New Approaches to Digital Evidence Acquisition and Analysis’, (2019) 280 National Institute of Justice Journal, at 1.
8 New York and Geneva, Human Rights Center and OHCHR, Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations: A Practical Guide on the Effective Use of Digital Open Source Information in Investigating Violations of International Criminal, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2020).
9 Kalshoven-Gieskes Forum, Leiden University, Leiden Guidelines on the Use of Digitally Derived Evidence in International Criminal Courts and Tribunals (2021).
10 K. Orlovsky and A. Roche-Mair, ‘Evidence Matters in ICC Trials’, (2016) International Bar Association, at 19 (IBA Report).
11 The ICC E-Court Protocol was designed to guarantee that ‘all the necessary information is available electronically during the proceedings to the Court’. See The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Consolidated E-Court Protocol, ICC-01/04-01/06, 4 April 2008, Ann.
12 For instance, in the Bemba et al. case, bank records from Western Union were considered admissible after the Chamber examined that they had been obtained via judicial order and that their collection complied with Austrian law requirements. See The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Fidèle Babala Wandu and Narcisse Árido, Appeal Brief filed by the Defence for Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo with the Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/05-01/13, 15 May 2017, para. 87.
13 N. Mehandru and A. Koenig, ‘Open Source Evidence and the International Criminal Court’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 15 April 2019, available at www.harvardhrj.com/2019/04/open-source-evidence-and-the-international-criminal-court/.
14 A. Koenig, ‘The New Forensics: Using Open Source Information to Investigate Grave Crimes’, Human Rights Center, 1 July 2018, at 7, available at humanrights.berkeley.edu/publications/new-forensics-using-open-source-information-investigate-grave-crimes (HRC Report 2018).
15 Ibid.
16 Civil society organizations play an important role in the performance of fact-finding activities, including the gathering of evidence for the purposes of prosecuting individuals before national or international jurisdictions. Some of these organizations have focused on the use of open-source data to investigate human rights abuses and the commission of international crimes. This methodology is known as open-source intelligence (OSINT). Organizations such as Human Rights Watch or Bellingcat use publicly available data and evidence reported by ordinary citizens to cross-examine it and drawing conclusions, in order to document the events taking place in conflict zones.
17 See Leiden Guidelines, supra note 9, at 20, 29.
18 K. Aksamitowska, ‘Digital Evidence in Domestic Core International Crimes Prosecutions: Lessons Learned from Germany, Sweden, Finland and The Netherlands’, (2021) 19 Journal of International Criminal Justice 189, at 192–3.
19 See, for instance, the implications of the US Court ordering Facebook to disclose posts that had been previously deleted from the platform in order to seek evidence relating to anti-Rohingya hate speech and incitement to violence, so that they might potentially be used before the International Court of Justice as evidence of Myanmar’s alleged responsibility for genocide. A. Koenig, ‘Q&A on Court Ordering Facebook to Disclose Content on Myanmar Genocide’, Just Security and Tech Policy Press, 24 September 2021, available at www.justsecurity.org/78358/qa-on-court-ordering-facebook-to-disclose-content-on-myanmar-genocide/.
20 T. Hussain Sheikch and R. Gupta, ‘Big Data Analysis and Digital Forensic’, (2018) 4(2) International Journal of Scientific and Technical Advancements 207, at 209.
21 D. B. Garrie and J. D. Morrissy, ‘Digital Forensic Evidence in the Courtroom: Understanding Content and Quality’, (2014) 12(2) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 122, at 125–7.
22 Eurojust, ‘Documenting International Crimes and Human Rights Violations for Accountability Purposes: Guidelines for Civil Society Organisations’, Eurojust, 21 September 2022, at 5, available at www.eurojust.europa.eu/publication/documenting-international-crimes-and-human-rights-violations.
23 Ibid., at 16.
24 See, e.g., the relevant case law examples provided by Freeman, supra note 4, at 307 et seq.
25 J. Paladino, ‘Can a Tweet be Evidence? How Social Media is Being Used to Hunt Down War Crimes in Ukraine’, GRID, 11 April 2022, available at www.grid.news/story/global/2022/04/11/in-ukraine-war-crimes-are-being-captured-on-social-media/.
26 Ibid.
27 See, e.g., Y. McDermott, A. Koenig and D. Murray, ‘Open Source Information’s Blind Spot: Human and Machine Bias in International Criminal Investigations’, (2021) 19(1) Journal of International Criminal Justice 85.
28 See, e.g., A. Koenig et al., ‘New Technologies and the Investigation of International Crimes: An Introduction’, (2021) 19 Journal of International Criminal Justice 1.
29 International standards consider the right to a fair trial as an imperative principle in criminal proceedings. See, inter alia, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res. 217A(III), UN Doc. A/810 (1948), Arts. 10–11; 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171 (1966), Art. 14; 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols No. 11 and No. 14, ETS 5 (1950), Art. 6; 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, 1144 UNTS 123 (1969), Art. 8; 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1520 UNTS 217 (1981), Art. 7.
30 S. Negri, ‘Equality of Arms – Guiding Light or Empty Shell?’, in M. Bohlander (ed.) International Criminal Justice: A Critical Analysis of Institutions and Procedures (2007), 13, at 15.
31 In the Tadić decision, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia stated that ‘the principle of equality of arms must be given a more liberal interpretation than that normally upheld with regard to proceedings before domestic courts’. See The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić (Judgement), IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999, paras. 52–55. Further discussion on the equality of arms principle from the perspective of human rights law may be found in W. Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (2016), 1024–5.
32 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 2187 UNTS 90 (1998), Art. 67 (Rome Statute).
33 See Section 2.2, supra.
34 For instance, in the Darfur situation, the OTP used satellite images generated by the Satellite Sentinel Project to further its investigation into Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, who was issued an arrest warrant in 2012 that has not yet been successfully enforced. Most of these documents and records remain restricted due to confidentiality reasons. The Satellite Sentinel Project was conceived to produce analysis reports on satellite imagery and data patterns, for the purposes of monitoring potential hotspots and threats to human security. See ‘Satellite Sentinel Project’, available at www.enoughproject.org/about/past-campaigns/satellite-sentinel-project.
35 See Regulations of the Office of the Prosecutor, ICC-BD/05-01-09, 23 April 2009, Regulation 8.
36 See Rome Statute, supra note 32, Art. 87.
37 Office of the Prosecutor, Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations (2013), para. 2 (OTP Policy Paper 2013).
38 See Rome Statute, supra note 32, Arts. 54, 67.
39 Ibid., Art. 54(3)(e).
40 Ibid., Art. 72.
41 Ibid., Art. 68(5).
42 Ibid., Art. 61(3).
43 Ibid., Art. 64(3)(c).
44 International Criminal Court Rules of Procedure and Evidence, ICC-PIOS-LT-03-004/19_Eng (2019), Rule 77 (Rules of Procedure and Evidence).
45 Ibid., Rule 81(2).
46 Ibid., Rule 79.
47 C. Buisman and D. Hooper, ‘Defense Investigations and the Collection of Evidence’, in C. Rohan and G. Zyberi (eds.), Defense Perspectives on International Criminal Justice (2017), 519, at 520.
48 International Criminal Court Chambers Practice Manual (2021), para. 21.
49 Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Decision Setting the Regime for Evidence Disclosure and Other Related Matters, ICC-01/04-02/06-47, 12 April 2013, para. 32.
50 See Rules of Procedure and Evidence, supra note 44, Rule 81(1). See also X. J. Keïta, ‘Disclosure of Evidence in the Law and Practice of the ICC’, (2016) 16 International Criminal Law Review 1018, at 1035.
51 M. Simonato, ‘Defence Rights and the Use of Information Technology in Criminal Procedure’, (2014) 85(1) Revue international de droit pénal 261, at 287.
52 C. Buisman, ‘The Prosecutor’s Obligation to Investigate Incriminating and Exonerating Circumstances Equally: Illusion or Reality?’, (2014) 27 Leiden Journal of International Law 205, at 211.
53 See Buisman and Hooper, supra note 47, at 558.
54 See Freeman, supra note 4, at 329–33.
55 See Mehandru and Koenig, supra note 13.
56 C. Altheide and H. Carvey, Digital Forensics with Open Source Tools (2011), 3.
57 See HRC Report 2018, supra note 14, at 9.
58 See Section 2.2, supra.
59 See, e.g., the submissions presented by the defence in the case of The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Fidèle Babala Wandu and Narcisse Árido, Narcisse Arido’s response to Bemba and Kilolo’s Requests for an Ex Parte Defence Only Status Conference to Discuss Privileged Materials, ICC-01/05-01/13, 12 May 2015, paras. 4–6.
60 See Rome Statute, supra note 32, Art. 15(1).
61 Ibid., Art. 66(3).
62 Koenig et al., ‘Open Source Fact-Finding in Preliminary Examinations’, in M. Bergsmo and C. Stahn (eds.), Quality Control in Preliminary Examination: Volume 2 (2018), 681, at 681–2.
63 Office of the Prosecutor, Strategic Plan 2016-2018, Policy Paper (2015), para. 63.
64 E. McPherson, I. Guenette Thornton and M. Mahmoudi, ‘Open Source Investigations and the Technology-Driven Knowledge Controversy in Human Rights Fact-Finding’, in S. Dubberley, A. Koenig and D. Murray (eds.), Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation, and Accountability (2020), 68, at 71–2.
65 For this reason, the ICC Prosecutor, Kharim Khan, and Eurojust, have launched practical guidelines for documenting and preserving information on international crimes, addressed to civil society organizations. See Eurojust, supra note 22.
66 See Freeman, supra note 4, at 333.
67 E. Irving, R. Heinsch and S. Rewald, ‘Using the Leiden Guidelines to Address Key Issues in Digitally Derived Evidence’, OpinioJuris, 23 August 2022, available at www.opiniojuris.org/2022/08/23/using-the-leiden-guidelines-to-address-key-issues-in-digitally-derived-evidence/.
68 See, e.g., the submissions presented by the defence in the case of The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Fidèle Babala Wandu and Narcisse Árido, Narcisse Arido’s response to Bemba and Kilolo’s Requests for an Ex Parte Defence Only Status Conference to Discuss Privileged Materials, ICC-01/05-01/13, 12 May 2015, paras. 4–6.
69 The Prosecutor v. Salim Jamil Ayyash et al., Decision on the Admissibility of Documents Published on the WikiLeaks Website, STL-11-01/T/TC, 21 May 2015.
70 Ibid., paras. 40–43.
71 See Section 3.2.2, infra.
72 See Buisman and Hooper, supra note 47, at 539.
73 See OTP Policy Paper 2013, supra note 37, para. 27.
74 D. Jacobs, ‘Methodological Challenges Relating to the Use of Third-Party Human Rights Fact-Finding in Preliminary Examinations’, Article 15 Communication, 27 May 2019, para. 88.
75 See Section 3.1, supra. See also IBA Report, supra note 10, at 37.
76 See Koenig et al., supra note 62, at 700.
77 See Altheide and Carvey, supra note 56, at 4.
78 See IBA Report, supra note 10, at 23.
79 L. Freeman, ‘Prosecuting Atrocity Crimes with Open Source Evidence: Lessons from the International Criminal Court’, in Dubberley, Koenig and Murray, supra note 64, at 65. See also C. Koettl, D. Murray and S. Dubberley, ‘Open Source Investigation for Human Rights Reporting: A Brief History’, in ibid., at 21.
80 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo et al., Public Redacted Version of Defence Response to Prosecution’s Third Request for the Admission of Evidence from the Bar Table, ICC-01/05-01/13, 9 October 2015, paras. 83–86.
81 See Freeman, supra note 4, at 328.
82 See IBA Report, supra note 10, at 26.
83 See, e.g., the evidence adduced for the purposes of issuing the arrest warrant in The Prosecutor v. Mahmoud Mustafa Busayf Al-Werfalli, Second Warrant of Arrest, ICC-01/11-01/17, 4 July 2018, para. 19.
84 Assembly of States Parties, Report on the Performance of the Court’s Legal Aid System in 2017, ICC-ASP/17/3 (3 May 2018), at 2.
85 See Buisman and Hooper, supra note 47, at 521.
86 Regulation 77 of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-BD/01-05-16 (as amended on 12 November 2018).
87 Assembly of States Parties, Proposed Programme Budget for 2022 of the International Criminal Court, ICC-ASP/20/10 (16 August 2021), at 121 and Ann. II.
88 Assembly of States Parties, Registry’s Single Policy Document on the Court’s Legal Aid System, ICC-ASP/12/3 (4 June 2013).
89 Assembly of States Parties, Report of the Bureau on Legal Aid, ICC-ASP/20/39 (1 December 2021), at 4–5.
90 M. Fedorova, ‘The Principle of Equality of Arms in International Criminal Proceedings’, in C. Rohan and G. Zyberi (eds.), Defense Perspectives on International Criminal Justice (2017), 204, at 219.
91 See Buisman and Hooper, supra note 47, at 539.
92 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for Admission of Materials into Evidence Pursuant to Article 64(9) of the Rome Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08, 8 October 2012, para. 9; The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the Prosecutor’s Bar Table Motions), ICC-01/04-01/07, 17 December 2010, para. 24.
93 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for Admission of Materials into Evidence Pursuant to Article 64(9) of the Rome Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08, 8 October 2012, para. 7.
94 Ibid., para. 8.
95 Ibid.
96 Ibid.
97 The Prosecutor v. Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Mr Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Mr Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Mr Fidèle Babala and Mr Narcisse Arido, Appeals Chamber Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/13-2275-Red, 8 March 2018, para. 371. See also Freeman, supra note 4, at 294–5.
98 The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, Second Decision on the Introduction of Prior Recorded Testimonies Pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the Rules, ICC-01/12-01/18-1267-Red, 26 January 2021, para. 24.
99 See Freeman, supra note 4, at 292–3.
100 The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, Second Decision on the Introduction of Prior Recorded Testimonies Pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the Rules, ICC-01/12-01/18-1267-Red, 26 January 2021, para. 24.
101 See Freeman, supra note 4, at 292–3.
102 A. Koenig and L. Freeman, ‘Open Source Investigations for Legal Accountability: Challenges and Best Practices’, in Dubberley, Koenig and Murray, supra note 64, at 334–5.
103 Rome Statute, Art. 69(4). The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo et al., Dec. on Requests to Exclude Western Union Documents and other Evidence Pursuant to Article 69(7), ICC-01/05-01/13, 29 April 2016.
104 The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Dec. on Prosecution’s Request for Admission of Documentary Evidence, ICC01/04-02/06-1838, 28 March 2017, para. 63.
105 Amnesty International, ‘Admitting Mistakes on Admitting Evidence – It’s Not Too Late for the ICC to Get It Right’, 4 May 2018, available at hrij.amnesty.nl/icc-bemba-et-al-judgment-admitting-mistakes-on-admitting-evidence/.
106 International Bar Association, Recommendations of the International Bar Association ICC & ICL Programme to the Independent Expert Review of the International Criminal Court (April 2020), available at www.coalitionfortheicc.org/document/recommendations-international-bar-association-icc-icl-programme-independent-expert-review, at 16.
107 The Prosecutor v. Alfred Rombhot Yekatom & Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona, Yekatom Defence Submission on the Conduct of the Trial, ICC-01/14-01/18, 15 May 2020, paras. 5–9.
108 See Rules of Procedure and Evidence, supra note 44, Rule 63(2).
109 E. Irving, R. Heinsch and S. Rewald, ‘Using the Leiden Guidelines to Address Key Issues in Digitally Derived Evidence’, OpinioJuris, 23 August 2022, available at www.opiniojuris.org/2022/08/23/using-the-leiden-guidelines-to-address-key-issues-in-digitally-derived-evidence/.
110 The Prosecutor v. Salim Jamil Ayyash, Sentencing Judgment, STL-11-01/S/TC, 11 December 2020, paras. 11–27, 43, 140.
111 L. E. Fletcher et al., ‘An Overview of the Use of Digital Evidence in International Criminal Courts’, (2013) Salzburg Workshop on Cyber Investigations, at 15.
112 The Prosecutor v. Turinabo et al., Decision on Prosecution Second Motion for Admission of Evidence from the Bar Table (Material Obtained from Registry and Seizures from Augustin Ngirabatware at the UNDF), MICT-18-116-T, 15 January 2021, at 3.
113 The Prosecutor v. Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for Admission of Materials into Evidence Pursuant to Article 64(9) of the Rome Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08, 8 October 2012, para. 159.
114 Rule 94bis common to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
115 The Rome Statute and the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence refer to expert witnesses in certain regards, e.g., the appointment of experts to assist the OTP in the investigation of a concrete situation, or the protection of witnesses and experts. However, they do not provide for specific criteria on how to assess the testimony of expert witnesses.
116 K. N. Calvo-Goller, The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court. ICTY and ICTR Precedents (2006), Section 11.18, at 276.
117 W. Jordash and L. Kulinowski, ‘Vaguely Drawn Maps and Dimly Lit Paths: Rules Governing the Admissibility of Evidence at the Ad Hoc Tribunals (Part II)’, in C. Rohan and G. Zyberi (eds.), Defense Perspectives on International Criminal Justice (2017), 445, at 451.
118 The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06, 14 March 2012, para. 112.
119 See Freeman, supra note 4, at 297.
120 The Prosecutor v. Kordic and Others, ICTY Case No. 95–14/2, Official Transcript, 28 January 2000, at 13269.
121 Regulation 44 of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-BD/01-05-16 (as amended on 12 November 2018).
122 The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Decision Adjourning the Hearing on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(c)(i) of the Rome Statute, ICC-02/11/01/11, 3 June 2013, para. 27.
123 ICC, Chambers Practice Manual (May 2017), 10.
124 See, for instance, the problems regarding disclosure in The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the Prosecution’s Urgent Request for Variation of the Time-Limit to Disclose the Identity of Intermediary 143 or Alternatively to Stay Proceedings Pending Further Consultations with the VWU, ICC-01/04-01/06, 8 July 2010, as well as in The Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Prosecution Notification of Withdrawal of the Charges Against Francis Kirimi Muthaura, ICC-01/09-02/11, 11 March 2013, para. 10.
125 See ICC, supra note 123, at 9–10.
126 Ibid., at 11.
127 See Leiden Guidelines, supra note 9, Section E.2, at 42–3.
128 Arts. 56 to 58 of the Rome Statute allow the Pre-Trial Chamber to issue judicial orders and arrest warrants during the course of the investigation, if it is formally requested by the OTP.
129 J. K. Cogan, ‘International Criminal Courts and Fair Trials: Difficulties and Prospects’, (2002) 27 Yale Journal of International Law 111, at 123–4.
130 Regulation 44(4) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-BD/01-05-16 (as amended on 12 November 2018).
131 Rule 64(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence states that: ‘An issue relating to relevance or admissibility must be raised at the time when the evidence is submitted to a Chamber …’.
132 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Separate Opinion of Judge Eboe-Osuji), ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Anx3, 14 June 2018, para. 302.
133 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Separate Opinion of Judge Van den Wyngaert and Judge Morrison), ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Anx2, 8 June 2018, para. 18.