On witnesses and victims
This month:
- Judicial witness assessments at the international criminal courts
- Addressing sexual violence in conflict
Witness assessments
Gabriele Chlevickaite, Barbora Hola and Catrien Bijleveld published “Judicial Witness Assessments at the ICTY, ICTR and ICC. Is There ‘Standard Practice’ in International Criminal Justice?” The in depth study is based on their research on all international criminal court judgements between 1996 and 2019.
The highly relevant study assess the way the courts weigh the reliability and credibility of witness statements. I recommend practitioners to take note of the “consolidated witness assessment framework ICTY/ICTR, ICC”. This framework identifies factors related to the witness competence, quality and objectivity. These factors are underpinned by criteria judges have applied in their judgements.
The study furthermore concentrated on the scientific validity of the criteria and identifies the areas where more empirically grounded, standardized procedures would be most beneficial to the fact-finders.
In its conclusions the study addresses several observationas and recommendations. In my view best summarized in this line: “It is high time to stop calling international criminal justice an ‘emerging system’, justifying its lack of established practices due to the novelty of the task. In over two decades of modern ICCTs, the methodologies of evidence evaluation have improved considerably, and the fact-finding practices of future international criminal proceedings must be further guided by the best standards available. While the exercise of judicial independence and a flexible approach towards evidence is indispensable, the necessity for consistent guidelines, informed by current scientific understanding of witnesses, their memory and best practices to facilitate recall in a courtroom environment, is ever more important”.
Sexual violence in conflict
Trial International has published “Rape Myths in Wartime Sexual Violence Trials. Transferring the burden from Survivor to Perpetrator”.
Although the study is based on findings related to criminal proceedings in a particular country, the recommendations apply to wartime sexual violence prosecutions across the globe. The work is addressing 4 gender based stereotypes in wartime sexual violence.
- promiscuity: victims provoke sexual violence through promiscuous behaviour;
- consent: victims consent to the sexual violence offence by failing to resist;
- credibility: victims lie about sexual violence
- shame: victims, not perpetrators, should feel ashamed of the sexual violence they have suffered.
The report concludes that “Notwithstanding immense progress over the past decade, judicial actors continue to draw upon these rape myths, transferring shame and blame for sexual violence from the perpetrator to victim.”
In order to empower victims that participate in criminal trials, the study identifies problems related to the identified stigma. It then provides clear cut recommendations to practitioners: prosecutors, judges, witness support officers, legilatures and the international community as such.
Also relevant to note is the reference that is made to the “Principles for Global Action’, a guide to preventing and addressing stigma associated with conflict related sexual violence” and the UK’s Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative and its three main objectives:
- tackling stigma
- delivering better access to justice for survivors
- improving how to prevent and respond to these horrific crimes