174 Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 13 Kunarac Appeal Judgement, paras 43, 48 Niyitegeka Appeal Judgement, para. The Accused must present clearly and in detail any such alternative inference he wishes the Appeals Chamber to consider. With respect to a Trial Chamber’s findings of fact on which the conviction does not rely, the Appeals Chamber will defer to the findings of the Trial Judgement where such findings are reasonable. 120 Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. See also Ntagerura Appeal Judgement, paras 304-306. If no reasonable Trial Chamber could have ignored an inference which favours the accused, the Appeals Chamber will vacate the Trial Chamber’s factual inference and reverse any conviction that is dependent on it. In such instances, the question for the Appeals Chamber is whether it was reasonable for the Trial Chamber to exclude or ignore other inferences that lead to the conclusion that an element of the crime was not proven. Where the challenge on appeal is to an inference drawn to establish a fact on which the conviction relies, the standard is only satisfied if the inference drawn was the only reasonable one that could be drawn from the evidence presented. This standard applies whether the evidence evaluated is direct or circumstantial. A Trial Chamber may only find an accused guilty of a crime if the Prosecution has proved each element of that crime (as defined with respect to the relevant mode of liability) beyond a reasonable doubt. the Appeals Chamber notes that it is unhelpful to try and explain the standard of proof other than by stating that the standard requires a finder of fact to be satisfied that there is no reasonable explanation of the evidence other than the guilt of the accused.Īt paras 219-220 of the Judgement, the Appeals Chamber recalled that when reviewing a Trial Chamber’s finding of fact based on inference, the standard is the same at that applied for direct evidence: the question before the Appeals Chamber is whether no reasonable trier of fact could have excluded or ignored other inferences that lead to the conclusion that an element of the crime was not proven.Ģ19. The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber’s reference to a “high degree of probability” in one of the footnotes to the section on standard of proof is confusing and not in accordance with the standard of proof of a criminal trial. In a footnote, the Trial Chamber specified that it interpreted the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard as a “high degree of probability”, but not as “certainty or proof beyond a shadow of doubt”.ĥ7. Moreover, the Trial Chamber recalled that, according to Rule 87(A) of the Rules, it is for the Prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In its Judgement, the Trial Chamber clearly referred to the principle laid down in Article 21(3) of the Statute that an accused must be considered innocent until proven guilty. At the conclusion of the case, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to whether the offence has been proved.ĥ6. The Appeals Chamber observes that for a finding of guilt on an alleged crime, a reasonable trier of fact must have reached the conclusion that all the facts which are material to the elements of that crime have been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution. The Appeal Chamber dismissed this ground of appeal but provided guidance as to the applicable standard.ĥ5. Martić contested the Trial Chamber’s use of the term “high degree of probability” as being the applicable standard of proof. Please help us improve the service by using our feedback form. The CLD is a living tool and its content is being regularly updated. For exact numbering of footnotes, refer to full documents. Please note that the CLD does not include confidential decisions and restatements of established case law and does not necessarily contain all notable rulings by the Appeals Chambers of the ICTR, the ICTY, and the IRMCT. In addition, refined searches in all fields of the database can be conducted through the “ Advanced Search” feature. Users can conduct quick searches by notions, cases names, titles of filings, date (in year-month-day format), statutes, rules, and other instruments through the “ Basic Search” page. It provides direct access to extracts of key judgements and decisions rendered by the ICTR, ICTY, and IRMCT Appeals Chambers since their inception, as well as to full-text versions of the corresponding appeal judgements and decisions. The Case Law Database (“CLD”) is a gateway to the jurisprudence of the ICTR, ICTY, and IRMCT Appeals Chambers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |