Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Nima Ghazbani ¹
• Mahin Sobhani ²
• Mojtaba Janipour ³

¹ Department of Law, Kish International Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kish, Iran.

² Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

³ Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Department of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

Abstract

This study examines the tension between the accused’s right to confront witnesses and the need for the effective administration of international criminal justice in the prosecution of international crimes. It seeks to address the fundamental question of how the International Criminal Court (ICC) strikes a balance between the rights of the accused and the administration of justice in cases where defendants hold positions of political power, resulting in witness intimidation and fear of in-person testimony.This research employs a descriptive-analytical methodology, drawing upon the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court.The findings indicate that in Ruto, the Court, by prohibiting the retroactive application of the amended Rule 68 and interpreting the rule in favour of the accused, restricted the use of prior recorded testimony and, in light of the weakness of the alternative evidence, the case reached an evidentiary deadlock. By contrast, in Al Hassan, the Court adopted a differentiated and flexible approach, distinguishing between the admissibility of evidence and its probative value, and moved away from the automatic exclusion of prior recorded testimony.

Keywords

• Prior Recorded Testimony
• Rule 68 (ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence)
• Right of Confrontation
• International Criminal Court (ICC)
• Ruto Case
• Al Hassan Case
• Fair Trial Guarantees

Main Subjects

• Criminal Law