This book examines how the International Criminal Court (ICC) evaluates evidence within its hybrid legal framework, providing a comparative analysis of continental and common law traditions as applied in trial practice. It illustrates how the legal backgrounds of judges influence both conceptual and practical understanding of the prosecutorial burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and the principle of free evaluation of evidence. These disparities create tensions in the way evidence is assessed.
Focusing on key cases such as Bemba, Gbagbo, and Ongwen, the book identifies recurring challenges, including the tendency to confuse procedural rules with the rigorous reasoning process required by evidence law. It challenges the continental assumption that evidence law is merely a set of admissibility rules. It redefines it as a body of law that offers a structured method of reasoning, supporting a principled approach to the admissibility of evidence at the trial stage and its evaluation at the judgment stage.
