Relevance of the proffered evidence
|Decision on Additional Evidence - 15.11.2000||
Download full document
CONSIDERING that the admission of evidence is in the interests of justice if it is relevant to a material issue, if it is credible and if it is such that it would probably show that the conviction or sentence was unsafe;
[RULE 115 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE WAS AMENDED ON 12 JULY 2002.]
|ICTR Rule Rule 115 ICTY Rule Rule 115|
|Decision on Additional Evidence - 16.10.1998||
Download full document
G. Interests of Justice
69. As mentioned above, the Appeals Chamber finds that the following items were not available at trial within the meaning of Rule 115 (A): […] In relation to these items and […] the evidence of witness D.D., it will accordingly be necessary to consider the operation of the criteria relating to the interests of justice.
70. If the Appeals Chamber at this stage authorises the presentation of additional evidence, it will be for the Chamber at a later stage to decide whether the evidence discloses an “error of fact which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice” within the meaning of Article 25, paragraph 1(b), of the Statute. At this stage, the Chamber cannot pre-empt this decision by definitively deciding that the proposed evidence does or does not disclose “an error of fact which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice”.
71. The task of the Appeals Chamber at this stage is to apply the somewhat more flexible formula of Rule 115 of the Rules, which requires the Chamber to “authorise the presentation of such evidence if it considers that the interests of justice so require”. For the purposes of this case, the Chamber considers that the interests of justice require admission only if:
(a) the evidence is relevant to a material issue;
(b) the evidence is credible; and
(c) the evidence is such that it would probably show that the conviction was unsafe.
72. The Appeals Chamber would only add that, in applying these criteria, account has to be taken of the principle of finality of decisions. As mentioned above, the principle would not operate to prevent the admission of evidence that would assist in determining whether there could have been a miscarriage of justice. But clearly the principle does suggest a limit to the admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage.
73. The Appeals Chamber also considers that, in applying these criteria, any doubt should be resolved in favour of the Appellant in accordance with the principle in dubio pro reo.
[RULE 115 OF THE ICTY RULES WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED ON 12 July 2002, 30 September 2002, and 21 July 2005]
|ICTR Statute Article 24 ICTY Statute Article 25 ICTR Rule Rule 115 ICTY Rule Rule 115|